From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 11/2/2025 12:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

The orbital time of a GPS satellite is half a sidereal day,
or 43082.04525 UTC seconds (measured on the geoid).

The orbital time of a GPS satellite measured by a clock in
the satellite is 43082.04525(1 + 4.4647e-10) SI seconds.

Weren't you insisting, not so long ago, that there
is no "UTC second" and UTC is applying SI second?

Wasn't it one of those "irrefutable facts" of yours
that time?
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 26.02.2026 08:42, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 11/2/2025 12:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

The orbital time of a GPS satellite is half a sidereal day,
or 43082.04525 UTC seconds (measured on the geoid).

The orbital time of a GPS satellite measured by a clock in
the satellite is 43082.04525(1 + 4.4647e-10) SI seconds.

Quite correct!

This measurement confirms the prediction of GR.

Thanks for reminding us!

Weren't you insisting, not so long ago, that there
is no "UTC second" and UTC is applying SI second?

These are the facts I insist:

UTC is a coordinate time.

A UTC second is equal to a SI-second on the geoid only.

The orbital time of a clock in a GPS satellite is
43082.0452500000 UTC seconds and 43082.0452692348 SI seconds.

Wasn't it one of those "irrefutable facts" of yours
that time?

All facts are irrefutable.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 26.02.2026 08:42, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 11/2/2025 12:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

The orbital time of a GPS satellite is half a sidereal day,
or 43082.04525 UTC seconds (measured on the geoid).

The orbital time of a GPS satellite measured by a clock in the
satellite is 43082.04525(1 + 4.4647e-10) SI seconds.

Quite correct!

This measurement confirms the prediction of GR.

Thanks for reminding us!

you may thank all you want, since is wrong. That's a combination of both
SR and GR, one of which is subtracted. Try again. Better luck next time
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 2/27/2026 2:38 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 26.02.2026 08:42, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 11/2/2025 12:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

The orbital time of a GPS satellite is half a sidereal day,
or 43082.04525 UTC seconds (measured on the geoid).

The orbital time of a GPS satellite measured by a clock in
the satellite is 43082.04525(1 + 4.4647e-10) SI seconds.

Quite correct!

This measurement confirms the prediction of GR.

Thanks for reminding us!

Weren't you insisting, not so long ago, that there
is no "UTC second" and UTC is applying SI second?

These are the facts I insist:

UTC is a coordinate time.

A UTC second is equal to a SI-second on the geoid only.

Wanna a quoting where you insisted
that there is no "UTC second" at all
and The One And Only Second is SI second,
applied everywhere including UTC?

You're a piece of lying shit, as expected
from a brainwashed relativistic idiot.
Your lies have short legs, however, and
your SI idiocy is unusable ideological
nonsense with the only purpose of helping
idiots like you to lie that The Shit of
your idiot guru is somehow "confirmed".
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

The 'nym-shifting troll trolled as "Joda Christakos":

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 26.02.2026 08:42, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 11/2/2025 12:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

The orbital time of a GPS satellite is half a sidereal day,
or 43082.04525 UTC seconds (measured on the geoid).

The orbital time of a GPS satellite measured by a clock in the
satellite is 43082.04525(1 + 4.4647e-10) SI seconds.

Quite correct!

This measurement confirms the prediction of GR.

Thanks for reminding us!

you may thank all you want, since is wrong. That's a combination of both
SR and GR, one of which is subtracted.

This is an approximation that works for small masses, but it does not give
the exact result. General relativity is not some addition to special relativity, it is a *generalization* of the former to a curved and dynamic a spacetime.

Both the so-called "special-relativistic" and "general-relativistic" contribution can be derived from the Schwarzschild metric assuming different conditions.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 2/27/2026 9:41 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

The 'nym-shifting troll trolled as "Joda Christakos":

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 26.02.2026 08:42, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 11/2/2025 12:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> The orbital time of a GPS satellite is half a sidereal day,
> or 43082.04525 UTC seconds (measured on the geoid).
>
> The orbital time of a GPS satellite measured by a clock in the
> satellite is 43082.04525(1 + 4.4647e-10) SI seconds.

Quite correct!

This measurement confirms the prediction of GR.

Thanks for reminding us!

you may thank all you want, since is wrong. That's a combination of both
SR and GR, one of which is subtracted.

This is an approximation that works for small masses, but it does not give the exact result. General relativity is not some addition to special relativity, it is a *generalization* of the former to a curved and dynamic a spacetime.

Both the so-called "special-relativistic" and "general-relativistic" contribution can be derived from the Schwarzschild metric assuming different conditions.

And in the meantime in the real world -
forbidden by relativistic idiots improper
clocks keep measuring improper t'=t in improper
seconds.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

cretinoid it-supporter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn illucid once again:

The 'nym-shifting troll trolled as "Joda Christakos":

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 26.02.2026 08:42, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 11/2/2025 12:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

The orbital time of a GPS satellite is half a sidereal day, or
43082.04525 UTC seconds (measured on the geoid).

The orbital time of a GPS satellite measured by a clock in the
satellite is 43082.04525(1 + 4.4647e-10) SI seconds.

Quite correct!

This measurement confirms the prediction of GR.

Thanks for reminding us!

you may thank all you want, since is wrong. That's a combination of
both SR and GR, one of which is subtracted.

This is an approximation that works for small masses, but it does not
give the exact result. General relativity is not some addition to
special relativity, it is a *generalization* of the former to a curved
and dynamic a spacetime.

get yourself an education before opening your shitty mouth, it's the SR effects subtracted not the other way around. Piss off, you are
insignificant, a waste of time and incapable to learn around here.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 02/27/2026 12:41 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

The 'nym-shifting troll trolled as "Joda Christakos":

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 26.02.2026 08:42, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 11/2/2025 12:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> The orbital time of a GPS satellite is half a sidereal day,
> or 43082.04525 UTC seconds (measured on the geoid).
>
> The orbital time of a GPS satellite measured by a clock in the
> satellite is 43082.04525(1 + 4.4647e-10) SI seconds.

Quite correct!

This measurement confirms the prediction of GR.

Thanks for reminding us!

you may thank all you want, since is wrong. That's a combination of both
SR and GR, one of which is subtracted.

This is an approximation that works for small masses, but it does not give the exact result. General relativity is not some addition to special relativity, it is a *generalization* of the former to a curved and dynamic a spacetime.

Both the so-called "special-relativistic" and "general-relativistic" contribution can be derived from the Schwarzschild metric assuming different conditions.

Actually plenty of people have "GR first" and "SR is local".

Sometimes it's distinguished "GR and SR" and "STR and GTR".

Einstein's original mass-energy equivalency is simply enough
the truncated first-term of the Taylor series for the kinetic
energy, not SR-ians dog-fooding themselves.

Then, the "special" a.k.a. "restricted" relativity is
of limited relevance.


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 02/27/2026 12:41 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

The 'nym-shifting troll trolled as "Joda Christakos":

you may thank all you want, since is wrong. That's a combination of both >>> SR and GR, one of which is subtracted.

This is an approximation that works for small masses, but it does not give >> the exact result. General relativity is not some addition to special
relativity, it is a *generalization* of the former to a curved and dynamic a >> spacetime.

Both the so-called "special-relativistic" and "general-relativistic"
contribution can be derived from the Schwarzschild metric assuming different >> conditions.

Actually plenty of people have "GR first" and "SR is local".

Nonsense, twice. You have no clue.

Sometimes it's distinguished "GR and SR" and "STR and GTR".

Merely labels for the same things. In Physics, "GR" is a common
abbreviation (as "general relativity" is a common term), and "SR" is less common (even though "special relativity" is a common term); "STR" (from "special theory of relativity") and "GTR" (from "general theory of
relativity") are mostly found among laypeople (who have read
popular-scientific or outdated books and are not aware that the shorthands
are more common in the scientific community today), some of which are crackpots.

Einstein's original mass-energy equivalency is simply enough
the truncated first-term of the Taylor series for the kinetic
energy,

More precisely, the Maclaurin_ series because the term is expanded for v =
0. Anyhow, it only works for non-zero mass, whereas the energy--momentum relation works for mass equals zero (e.g. photons) as well. So that
Einstein's approach worked there was more a mathematical coincidence.

Today we simply derive E_0 = E(p = 0) = m c^2 from the energy--momentum relation for a free particle in Minkowski space:

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2.

(But the derivation of the latter equation is not trivial.)

not SR-ians

There are no people who call themselves "SR-ians", and noone except
crackpots use that term.

dog-fooding themselves.

Whatever that is supposed to mean :-D

Then, the "special" a.k.a. "restricted" relativity is
of limited relevance.

Nonsense. You could not read this if quantum field theories, which are special-relativistic theories, would not be relevant. None of modern technology would have, I daresay would have, been developed.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 02/27/2026 12:41 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

The 'nym-shifting troll trolled as "Joda Christakos":

you may thank all you want, since is wrong. That's a combination of both >>> SR and GR, one of which is subtracted.

This is an approximation that works for small masses, but it does not give >> the exact result. General relativity is not some addition to special
relativity, it is a *generalization* of the former to a curved and dynamic a >> spacetime.

Both the so-called "special-relativistic" and "general-relativistic"
contribution can be derived from the Schwarzschild metric assuming different >> conditions.

Actually plenty of people have "GR first" and "SR is local".

Nonsense, twice. You have no clue.

Sometimes it's distinguished "GR and SR" and "STR and GTR".

Merely labels for the same things. In Physics, "GR" is a common
abbreviation (as "general relativity" is a common term), and "SR" is less common (even though "special relativity" is a common term); "STR" (from "special theory of relativity") and "GTR" (from "general theory of
relativity") are mostly found among laypeople (who have read
popular-scientific or outdated books and are not aware that the shorthands
are more common in the scientific community today), some of which are crackpots.

Einstein's original mass-energy equivalency is simply enough
the truncated first-term of the Taylor series for the kinetic
energy,

More precisely, the Maclaurin_ series because the term is expanded for v =
0. Anyhow, it only works for non-zero mass, whereas the energy--momentum relation works for mass equals zero (e.g. photons) as well. So that
Einstein's approach worked there was more a mathematical coincidence.

Today we simply derive E_0 = E(p = 0) = m c^2 from the energy--momentum relation for a free particle in Minkowski space:

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2.

(But the derivation of the latter equation is not trivial.)

not SR-ians

There are no people who call themselves "SR-ians", and noone except
crackpots use that term.

dog-fooding themselves.

Whatever that is supposed to mean :-D

Then, the "special" a.k.a. "restricted" relativity is
of limited relevance.

Nonsense. You could not read this if quantum field theories, which are special-relativistic theories, would not be relevant. None of modern technology would have, I daresay *could* have, been developed.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 02/27/2026 03:19 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 02/27/2026 12:41 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

The 'nym-shifting troll trolled as "Joda Christakos":

you may thank all you want, since is wrong. That's a combination of both >>>> SR and GR, one of which is subtracted.

This is an approximation that works for small masses, but it does not give >>> the exact result. General relativity is not some addition to special
relativity, it is a *generalization* of the former to a curved and dynamic a
spacetime.

Both the so-called "special-relativistic" and "general-relativistic"
contribution can be derived from the Schwarzschild metric assuming different
conditions.

Actually plenty of people have "GR first" and "SR is local".

Nonsense, twice. You have no clue.

Sometimes it's distinguished "GR and SR" and "STR and GTR".

Merely labels for the same things. In Physics, "GR" is a common
abbreviation (as "general relativity" is a common term), and "SR" is less common (even though "special relativity" is a common term); "STR" (from "special theory of relativity") and "GTR" (from "general theory of relativity") are mostly found among laypeople (who have read popular-scientific or outdated books and are not aware that the shorthands are more common in the scientific community today), some of which are crackpots.

Einstein's original mass-energy equivalency is simply enough
the truncated first-term of the Taylor series for the kinetic
energy,

More precisely, the Maclaurin_ series because the term is expanded for v =
0. Anyhow, it only works for non-zero mass, whereas the energy--momentum relation works for mass equals zero (e.g. photons) as well. So that Einstein's approach worked there was more a mathematical coincidence.

Today we simply derive E_0 = E(p = 0) = m c^2 from the energy--momentum relation for a free particle in Minkowski space:

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2.

(But the derivation of the latter equation is not trivial.)

not SR-ians

There are no people who call themselves "SR-ians", and noone except
crackpots use that term.

dog-fooding themselves.

Whatever that is supposed to mean :-D

Then, the "special" a.k.a. "restricted" relativity is
of limited relevance.

Nonsense. You could not read this if quantum field theories, which are special-relativistic theories, would not be relevant. None of modern technology would have, I daresay *could* have, been developed.

Einstein says "SR is local", and then there's that GR is
less local, meaning more everywhere.

Light's speed is constant: in deep space, in a vacuum, for zero time.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy have long ago falsified the
premier theories of Relativity.

Don't get me wrong about the success of spectroscopy
or about usual calculations of Lienard-Wiechert that
are much simplified from having SR be the theory.

I like the term "SR-ians", I didn't invent it and
it was coined here on Usenet somehow, and the person
who originated it I sort of forget who it was,
and they were sort of a crank in other ideas,
yet it came from a good place the _rejection_
of the _primariness_ of what is _restricted_ relativity.


Of course, all what's "SR" can be built from "GR",
so the idea that "the success of relativity beyond
classical theories" is due SR not GR-first is
a fallacy.

Simplifying the case for "zero-mass photons" has that
those formalisms can be built from an envelope instead
of an asymptote approach, or the integral analysis
instead of the differential analysis.


Again, something like "Arago spot" is predicted by
some mathematics, _not by others_, and it's always
there, so, SR furthermore _fails_ to model some
aspects of elements of the theory, that make for
among the reasons why mathematics _owes_ physics
more and better mathematics and continuity and
infinity.

I'd say that most people don't know that GR and SR
are two different things, and can be written in terms
of each other two quite altogether different ways,
then that "general" and "special" don't necessarily
speak to mathematical generality. Furthermore,
anyone can make for accounts, like Einstein does,
that "SR is local", and including "Relativity of
Simultaneity RoS is non-local".

If GR is just "there is no absolute, ..., motion"
along with the rest of mechanics, and SR is just
"light's speed is a finite constant and photons
have zero mass", then the rest of the attachments
of the theory generally include all of mechanics,
which already includes by definition all what
makes energy in all its forms, everywhere.



Don't confuse "the profusion of electronics"
with "the priority of SR", since Lienard-Wiechert
gives a sort of Faraday law, then that besides
there's for E X B or D X H that neither is really
primary, that's a fallacy. It's fallacious to say
that results deemed courtesy SR couldn't be derived
from GR, and furthermore SR has much less to say
about the matters of the real world including all
material things.


The only thing "Relativity Theory" says at all
is "there is no absolute, ..., motion, as a mathematical
conceit, now make mathematical formalisms about that".
All else is still all of mechanics.


Or, as Einstein put it: "it's classical, ..., in the limit".


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 2/28/2026 12:19 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 02/27/2026 12:41 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

The 'nym-shifting troll trolled as "Joda Christakos":

you may thank all you want, since is wrong. That's a combination of both >>>> SR and GR, one of which is subtracted.

This is an approximation that works for small masses, but it does not give >>> the exact result. General relativity is not some addition to special
relativity, it is a *generalization* of the former to a curved and dynamic a
spacetime.

Both the so-called "special-relativistic" and "general-relativistic"
contribution can be derived from the Schwarzschild metric assuming different
conditions.

Actually plenty of people have "GR first" and "SR is local".

Nonsense, twice. You have no clue.

Sometimes it's distinguished "GR and SR" and "STR and GTR".

Merely labels for the same things. In Physics, "GR" is a common
abbreviation (as "general relativity" is a common term), and "SR" is less common (even though "special relativity" is a common term); "STR" (from "special theory of relativity") and "GTR" (from "general theory of relativity") are mostly found among laypeople (who have read popular-scientific or outdated books and are not aware that the shorthands are more common in the scientific community today), some of which are crackpots.

Einstein's original mass-energy equivalency is simply enough
the truncated first-term of the Taylor series for the kinetic
energy,

More precisely, the Maclaurin_ series because the term is expanded for v =
0. Anyhow, it only works for non-zero mass, whereas the energy--momentum relation works for mass equals zero (e.g. photons) as well. So that Einstein's approach worked there was more a mathematical coincidence.

Today we simply derive E_0 = E(p = 0) = m c^2 from the energy--momentum relation for a free particle in Minkowski space:

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2.

(But the derivation of the latter equation is not trivial.)

not SR-ians

There are no people who call themselves "SR-ians", and noone except
crackpots use that term.

dog-fooding themselves.

Whatever that is supposed to mean :-D

Then, the "special" a.k.a. "restricted" relativity is
of limited relevance.

Nonsense. You could not read this if quantum field theories, which are special-relativistic theories, would not be relevant. None of modern technology would have, I daresay *could* have, been developed.

And in the meantime in the real world -
forbidden by your insane church improper
clocks keep measuring improper t'=t
in improper seconds.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 27.02.2026 18:44, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 2/27/2026 2:38 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

UTC is a coordinate time.

A UTC second is equal to a SI-second on the geoid only.

Wanna a quoting where you insisted
that there is no "UTC second" at all
and The One And Only Second is SI second,
applied everywhere including UTC?

Yes, please.

You can look for it here:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf

See 1.2.2.

Did you find it?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 2/28/2026 10:26 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 27.02.2026 18:44, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 2/27/2026 2:38 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

UTC is a coordinate time.

A UTC second is equal to a SI-second on the geoid only.

Wanna a quoting where you insisted
that there is no "UTC second" at all
and The One And Only Second is SI second,
applied everywhere including UTC?

Yes, please.

On 2/28/2026 10:26 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

I accept that you don't understand that to measure time
to a precision 1e-15 you must use an atomic clock which
has the very precise definition built in.

I also accept that you don't know that the institution
that has the definitions of units, including the second,
is The International System of Units (SI).

There is but one definition of second:

[..]

So whether you like it or not, this is the dentition used by all
who are measuring time in seconds.

You're welcome, you pathetic piece
of lying shit.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 28/02/2026 |a 11:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 2/28/2026 10:26 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 27.02.2026 18:44, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 2/27/2026 2:38 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

UTC is a coordinate time.

A UTC second is equal to a SI-second on the geoid only.

Wanna a quoting where you insisted
that there is no "UTC second" at all
and The One And Only Second is SI second,
applied everywhere including UTC?

Yes, please.

On 2/28/2026 10:26 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

I accept that you don't understand that to measure time
to a precision 1e-15 you must use an atomic clock which
has the very precise definition built in.

I also accept that you don't know that the institution
that has the definitions of units, including the second,
is The International System of Units (SI).

There is but one definition of second:

[..]

So whether you like it or not, this is the dentition used by all
who are measuring time in seconds.

You're welcome

So you've been, again, nailed on the wall, Maciej :-) ? So you've snipped
the answer, pathetic...

pathetic piece of lying shit.

Nice signature.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 2/28/2026 3:41 PM, Python wrote:

Le 28/02/2026 |a 11:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 2/28/2026 10:26 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 27.02.2026 18:44, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 2/27/2026 2:38 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

UTC is a coordinate time.

A UTC second is equal to a SI-second on the geoid only.

Wanna a quoting where you insisted
that there is no "UTC second" at all
and The One And Only Second is SI second,
applied everywhere including UTC?

Yes, please.

On 2/28/2026 10:26 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

I accept that you don't understand that to measure time
to a precision 1e-15 you must use an atomic clock which
has the very precise definition built in.

I also accept that you don't know that the institution
that has the definitions of units, including the second,
is The International System of Units (SI).

There is but one definition of second:

[..]

So whether you like it or not, this is the dentition used by all
who are measuring time in seconds.

You're welcome

So you've been, again, nailed on the wall, Maciej :-) ? So you've
snipped the answer, pathetic...

Oh, that piece of shit is opening its muzzle again,
and again pretending that it knows something. Tell me,
poor piece of shit - how is "select now()::interval"
in sql? I mean - in sql, not in some moronic code of
some brainwashed religious maniac.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 28.02.2026 11:17, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 2/28/2026 10:26 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 27.02.2026 18:44, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 2/27/2026 2:38 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

UTC is a coordinate time.

A UTC second is equal to an SI-second on the geoid only.

Which means that a UTC second is longer than an SI-second
everywhere else.

Wanna a quoting where you insisted
that there is no "UTC second" at all
and The One And Only Second is SI second,
applied everywhere including UTC?

Yes, please.

On 2/28/2026 10:26 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

I accept that you don't understand that to measure time
to a precision 1e-15 you must use an atomic clock which
has the very precise definition built in.

I also accept that you don't know that the institution
that has the definitions of units, including the second,
is The International System of Units (SI).

There is but one definition of second:

[..]

So whether you like it or not, this is the definition used by all
who are measuring time in seconds.

You're welcome, you pathetic piece
of lying shit.

I see that you finally have accepted that the SI-definition
of second is used by all clocks which are measuring time in
seconds, and that atomic clocks has the SI-definition built in.

You are learning! Well done!

You used to say things like:
"I find it problematic that a bunch of religious
maniacs is lying it [the SI-definition] is more precise
- ignoring the facts anyone can check at GPS."

So you were implying that the GPS proves that the SI-definition
of second is less precise than the old definition that there
are 86400 seconds in a mean solar day. :-D

And you used to say that the SI-definition was like:
"You may easily write a definition of a shark
as a grass eater - but it won't force real
sharks to eat grass. Sorry, trash. You may
try, of course, enforcing your absurd newspeak
on the rest of the world. But it's not as easy
as Orwell wrote, and your church is too stupid
to succeed anyway."

...where "your absurd newspeak" is the SI-definition of second.

But now you know better, and you will not repeat your
stupidities above again, will you? :-D

------------------
BTW,
I note that you have not succeeded in finding a quoting
where I insist:
"that there is no 'UTC second' at all and the SI second,
is applied everywhere including UTC".

Is that because you have read:

https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf
See 1.2.2.

So now you know what "coordinate time" is, and understand why a clock
in GPS orbit has to be adjusted down by the factor (1-4.4647e-10)
to stay in sync with UTC.
Right? :-D
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 01/03/2026 |a 13:42, "Paul B. Andersen" a |-crit :

Den 28.02.2026 11:17, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 2/28/2026 10:26 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 27.02.2026 18:44, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 2/27/2026 2:38 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

UTC is a coordinate time.

A UTC second is equal to an SI-second on the geoid only.

Which means that a UTC second is longer than an SI-second
everywhere else.

Wanna a quoting where you insisted
that there is no "UTC second" at all
and The One And Only Second is SI second,
applied everywhere including UTC?

Yes, please.

On 2/28/2026 10:26 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

I accept that you don't understand that to measure time
to a precision 1e-15 you must use an atomic clock which
has the very precise definition built in.

I also accept that you don't know that the institution
that has the definitions of units, including the second,
is The International System of Units (SI).

There is but one definition of second:

[..]

So whether you like it or not, this is the definition used by all
who are measuring time in seconds.

You're welcome, you pathetic piece
of lying shit.

I see that you finally have accepted that the SI-definition
of second is used by all clocks which are measuring time in
seconds, and that atomic clocks has the SI-definition built in.

You are learning! Well done!

You used to say things like:
"I find it problematic that a bunch of religious
maniacs is lying it [the SI-definition] is more precise
- ignoring the facts anyone can check at GPS."

So you were implying that the GPS proves that the SI-definition
of second is less precise than the old definition that there
are 86400 seconds in a mean solar day. :-D

And you used to say that the SI-definition was like:
"You may easily write a definition of a shark
as a grass eater - but it won't force real
sharks to eat grass. Sorry, trash. You may
try, of course, enforcing your absurd newspeak
on the rest of the world. But it's not as easy
as Orwell wrote, and your church is too stupid
to succeed anyway."

...where "your absurd newspeak" is the SI-definition of second.

But now you know better, and you will not repeat your
stupidities above again, will you? :-D

------------------
BTW,
I note that you have not succeeded in finding a quoting
where I insist:
"that there is no 'UTC second' at all and the SI second,
is applied everywhere including UTC".

Is that because you have read:

https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf
See 1.2.2.

So now you know what "coordinate time" is, and understand why a clock
in GPS orbit has to be adjusted down by the factor (1-4.4647e-10)
to stay in sync with UTC.
Right? :-D

You are very optimistic in assuming Wozniak could learn anything.

You are not charitable also, but he doesn't deserve that anyway. I tried
once to teach him SQL, in vain.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Python wrote:

Le 01/03/2026 |a 13:42, "Paul B. Andersen" a |-crit :

https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf See 1.2.2.

So now you know what "coordinate time" is, and understand why a clock
in GPS orbit has to be adjusted down by the factor (1-4.4647e-10)
to stay in sync with UTC.
Right? :-D

You are very optimistic in assuming Wozniak could learn anything.

You are not charitable also, but he doesn't deserve that anyway. I tried
once to teach him SQL, in vain.

yet another unemployed it-supporter, indeed, making it clearer.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 01/03/2026 14:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 28.02.2026 11:17, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 2/28/2026 10:26 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 27.02.2026 18:44, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 2/27/2026 2:38 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

UTC is a coordinate time.

A UTC second is equal to an SI-second on the geoid only.

Which means that a UTC second is longer than an SI-second
everywhere else.

Not everywhere. Under the geoid (like in Dead See valley or in a deep
mine) the SI second is longer.
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 3/2/2026 9:51 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 01/03/2026 14:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 28.02.2026 11:17, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 2/28/2026 10:26 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 27.02.2026 18:44, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 2/27/2026 2:38 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

UTC is a coordinate time.

A UTC second is equal to an SI-second on the geoid only.

Which means that a UTC second is longer than an SI-second
everywhere else.

Not everywhere. Under the geoid (like in Dead See valley or in a deep
mine) the SI second is longer.

Nobody cares, however, for your ideological
absurd. Your moronic church invented it for
fabricating measurement results fulfilling
those moronic prophecies of your moronic
guru. Apart of that it is useless.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Mikko wrote:

On 01/03/2026 14:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 28.02.2026 11:17, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 2/28/2026 10:26 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 27.02.2026 18:44, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 2/27/2026 2:38 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

UTC is a coordinate time.
A UTC second is equal to an SI-second on the geoid only.

Which means that a UTC second is longer than an SI-second
everywhere else.

Not everywhere. Under the geoid (like in Dead See valley or in a deep
mine) the SI second is longer.

Questionable, as the effective mass is smaller, too.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

These are the facts I insist:

UTC is a coordinate time.

No, it is NOT, mainly because it includes leap seconds. UTC is a time _standard_; since 1972, it may be *calculated*, by subtracting leap seconds, from TAI which is the coordinate time scale on which it is based.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time>

(One must not confuse "coordinated" as in "organized" with "coordinate" as
in "number referring to a position".)
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

Mikko wrote:

On 01/03/2026 14:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 28.02.2026 11:17, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:

On 2/28/2026 10:26 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 27.02.2026 18:44, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:

On 2/27/2026 2:38 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

UTC is a coordinate time.
A UTC second is equal to an SI-second on the geoid only.

Which means that a UTC second is longer than an SI-second
everywhere else.

Not everywhere. Under the geoid (like in Dead See valley or in a deep
mine) the SI second is longer.

Questionable, as the effective mass is smaller, too.

Standard error: it is the potential that matters,
not the value of g.
The minimum of the Newtonian potential
is obviously at the centre of the Earth.
(where g = 0)

So not questionably at all,

Jan

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

shit like this, unemployed it-supporter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

These are the facts I insist:

UTC is a coordinate time.

No, it is NOT, mainly because it includes leap seconds. UTC is a time _standard_; since 1972, it may be *calculated*, by subtracting leap
seconds,
from TAI which is the coordinate time scale on which it is based.

snipping and quoting out of context, you deplorable idiot. However, this professor in mathematics says you gearmons are the stupidest low IQ
wankers on the face of the earth. I beg you to reconsider.

EYuoEYu+EYu#_EYu4EYu+EYye_EYuaEYyeEYu+EYu+EYu+EYu|EYyCEYu#EYu#_EYuoEYu|EYu<EYyU_EYuaEYu<EYyUEYu<EYu+_EYuuEYu+EYu#EYyC_EYu-EYu|EYu<EYyU_EYuaEYu<EYyUEYu<EYu+_EYuuEYu+EYu#EYyC
EYuuEYu+_EYuiEYu+EYyU_EYu?EYu+EYu#EYu#EYu+EYu#EYyCEYyUEYu|EYu|EYu<EYyUEYu#_EYyUEYu|EYu#_EYuuEYu#EYu+EYu+EYu<EYyaEYu|EYyUEYya_EYu+EYu|_EYu!EYu|EYu+EYu+EYu|EYyCEYyUEYyC
https://www.bit%63hute.com/video/RuOyplylHSN4
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2