| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 51:55:24 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| Messages: | 111,513 |
GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
Yeah, that's right --a real measurement is 86400 where
The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
they don't.
Den 21.08.2025 06:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
Yeah, that's right --a real measurement is 86400 where
The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
they don't.
One simple question:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground, measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
You know, the GPS has been working for 50+ years, and every
satellite has been adjusted as stated above, so we know
the adjustment is necessary.
Den 21.08.2025 06:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
Yeah, that's right - real measurement is 86400 where
The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
they don't.
One simple question:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground, measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
You know, the GPS has been working for 50+ years, and every
satellite has been adjusted as stated above, so we know
the adjustment is necessary.
Den 21.08.2025 06:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
Yeah, that's right --a real measurement is 86400 where
The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
they don't.
One simple question:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground,-a measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync-a with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
You know, the GPS has been working for 50+ years, and every
satellite has been adjusted as stated above, so we know
the adjustment is necessary.
Den 21.08.2025 06:58, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
Yeah, that's right - real measurement is 86400 where
The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
they don't.
One simple question:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground, measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
You know, the GPS has been working for 50+ years, and every
satellite has been adjusted as stated above, so we know
the adjustment is necessary.
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 21.08.2025 06:58, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
> so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
> to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
Yeah, that's right - real measurement is 86400 where
The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
they don't.
One simple question:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground, measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
You know, the GPS has been working for 50+ years, and every
satellite has been adjusted as stated above, so we know
the adjustment is necessary.
The whole discussion is completely pointless
until Wozzy specifies how he (or anybody else for that matter)
is going to measure the length of a mean solar day
to an accuracy of 10^-16
It just can't be done, [1]
Le 21/08/2025 |a 21:35, "Paul B. Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 21.08.2025 06:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
Yeah, that's right --a real measurement is 86400 where
The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
they don't.
One simple question:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground,-a measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync-a with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
You know, the GPS has been working for 50+ years, and every
satellite has been adjusted as stated above, so we know
the adjustment is necessary.
This is error correction EfOaEfyUEfyeEfy!
On 8/21/2025 9:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 21/08/2025 |a 21:35, "Paul B. Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 21.08.2025 06:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
Yeah, that's right --a real measurement is 86400 where
The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
they don't.
One simple question:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground,-a measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync-a with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
You know, the GPS has been working for 50+ years, and every
satellite has been adjusted as stated above, so we know
the adjustment is necessary.
This is error correction EfOaEfyUEfyeEfy!
That's right, poor stinker: if we need
to correct it then it's an error*. What's so
funny about it?
*exceptions happen, they always do.
Le 22/08/2025 |a 11:06, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/21/2025 9:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 21/08/2025 |a 21:35, "Paul B. Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 21.08.2025 06:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
Yeah, that's right --a real measurement is 86400 where
The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
they don't.
One simple question:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground,-a measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync-a with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
You know, the GPS has been working for 50+ years, and every
satellite has been adjusted as stated above, so we know
the adjustment is necessary.
This is error correction EfOaEfyUEfyeEfy!
That's right, poor stinker: if we need
to correct it then it's an error*. What's so
funny about it?
You wouldn't get it.
*exceptions happen, they always do.
Sure. There is even one of "best logicians Humanity ever had" that is
also an insufferable idiot.
On 8/22/2025 6:07 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/08/2025 |a 11:06, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/21/2025 9:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 21/08/2025 |a 21:35, "Paul B. Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 21.08.2025 06:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
Yeah, that's right --a real measurement is 86400 where
The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
they don't.
One simple question:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground,-a measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync-a with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
You know, the GPS has been working for 50+ years, and every
satellite has been adjusted as stated above, so we know
the adjustment is necessary.
This is error correction EfOaEfyUEfyeEfy!
That's right, poor stinker: if we need
to correct it then it's an error*. What's so
funny about it?
You wouldn't get it.
*exceptions happen, they always do.
Sure. There is even one of "best logicians Humanity ever had" that is
also an insufferable idiot.
See, poor stinker - I've proven
Le 22/08/2025 |a 18:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/22/2025 6:07 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/08/2025 |a 11:06, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/21/2025 9:39 PM, Python wrote:
Le 21/08/2025 |a 21:35, "Paul B. Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 21.08.2025 06:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
Yeah, that's right --a real measurement is 86400 where
The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
they don't.
One simple question:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground,-a measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync-a with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
You know, the GPS has been working for 50+ years, and every
satellite has been adjusted as stated above, so we know
the adjustment is necessary.
This is error correction EfOaEfyUEfyeEfy!
That's right, poor stinker: if we need
to correct it then it's an error*. What's so
funny about it?
You wouldn't get it.
*exceptions happen, they always do.
Sure. There is even one of "best logicians Humanity ever had" that is
also an insufferable idiot.
See, poor stinker - I've proven
That you are an insufferable idiot? Definitely.
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 21.08.2025 06:58, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
> so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
> to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
Yeah, that's right - real measurement is 86400 where
The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
they don't.
One simple question:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground, measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
You know, the GPS has been working for 50+ years, and every
satellite has been adjusted as stated above, so we know
the adjustment is necessary.
The whole discussion is completely pointless
until Wozzy specifies how he (or anybody else for that matter)
is going to measure the length of a mean solar day
to an accuracy of 10^-16
It just can't be done, [1]
Jan
[1] Even in the best possible case the mean solar day cannot be known
more accurately that the AU, so to about 10^-10
Remember that the AU had to be given a defined value
precisely because it couldn't be measured accurately enough.
Den 22.08.2025 10:13, skrev J. J. Lodder:
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:Quite.
Den 21.08.2025 06:58, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
-a > GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
-a > so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
-a > to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
Yeah, that's right --a real measurement is 86400 where
The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
they don't.
One simple question:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground,-a measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync-a with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
You know, the GPS has been working for 50+ years, and every
satellite has been adjusted as stated above, so we know
the adjustment is necessary.
The whole discussion is completely pointless
until Wozzy specifies how he (or anybody else for that matter)
is going to measure the length of a mean solar day
to an accuracy of 10^-16
It just can't be done, [1]
Jan
[1] Even in the best possible case the mean solar day cannot be known
more accurately that the AU, so to about 10^-10
Remember that the AU had to be given a defined value
precisely because it couldn't be measured accurately enough.
There is no simple way to measure a mean solar day.
Once it was 24 hours on the pendulum clock at Greenwich.
Now you can say that it is about 24 hours UTC, even if the UTC
has to be adjusted with a leap second now and then, which
show that a mean solar day is slightly longer than 24 h,
and is varying a little.
But this posting is to Maciej Wo+|niak,
and that a mean solar day is measured to last
86400 s is his way of saying that the clock
is running at 'normal rate'.
He even claimed that a solar day was 24 hours,
he didn't know that it varies! :-D
On 8/21/2025 9:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 21.08.2025 06:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
-a > GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
-a > so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
-a > to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
Yeah, that's right --a real measurement is 86400 where
The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
they don't.
One simple question:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground,-a measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync-a with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
That's because the clocks are ruled by
common sense, not by some religious maniacs
mumbling about some delusional "laws of
nature" allegedly forcing these clocks
to run desynchronized.
So why is the adjustment necessary?You know, the GPS has been working for 50+ years, and every
satellite has been adjusted as stated above, so we know
the adjustment is necessary.
Sure it is.
On 8/22/2025 7:28 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
But this posting is to Maciej Wo+|niak,
He even claimed that a solar day was 24 hours,
he didn't know that it varies! :-D
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk-a /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us-a /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or
the making of such a statement:
[from me] The most obvious weapon of
a relativistic piece of shit when
cornered.
:-D
the definition of second loved so--
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Den 22.08.2025 10:13, skrev J. J. Lodder:
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 21.08.2025 06:58, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
> so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
> to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
Yeah, that's right - real measurement is 86400 where
The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
they don't.
One simple question:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground, measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
You know, the GPS has been working for 50+ years, and every
satellite has been adjusted as stated above, so we know
the adjustment is necessary.
The whole discussion is completely pointless
until Wozzy specifies how he (or anybody else for that matter)
is going to measure the length of a mean solar day
to an accuracy of 10^-16
It just can't be done, [1]
Jan
[1] Even in the best possible case the mean solar day cannot be known
more accurately that the AU, so to about 10^-10
Remember that the AU had to be given a defined value
precisely because it couldn't be measured accurately enough.
Quite.
There is no simple way to measure a mean solar day.
Once it was 24 hours on the pendulum clock at Greenwich.
Now you can say that it is about 24 hours UTC, even if the UTC
has to be adjusted with a leap second now and then, which
show that a mean solar day is slightly longer than 24 h,
and is varying a little.
But this posting is to Maciej Wo?niak,
and that a mean solar day is measured to last
86400 s is his way of saying that the clock
is running at 'normal rate'.
He even claimed that a solar day was 24 hours,
he didn't know that it varies! :-D
BTW, this isn't a discussion.
Read Maciej Wo?niak statement and
my question, and you will understand what it is.
Den 22.08.2025 19:44, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/22/2025 7:28 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
But this posting is to Maciej Wo+|niak,
He even claimed that a solar day was 24 hours,
he didn't know that it varies! :-D
24 h = 86400 s
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk-a /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us-a /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation,
or the making of such a statement:
[from me] The most obvious weapon of
a relativistic piece of shit when
cornered.
:-D
Den 03.04.2025 07:26, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Den 21.08.2025 23:32, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/21/2025 9:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 21.08.2025 06:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
Yeah, that's right - real measurement is 86400 where
The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
they don't.
One simple question:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground, measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
That's because the clocks are ruled by
common sense, not by some religious maniacs
mumbling about some delusional "laws of
nature" allegedly forcing these clocks
to run desynchronized.
I appreciate your sense of humour,
"clocks are ruled by common sense, not by laws of nature"
that's a good one! Efye
But can't you give a serious answer in stead of joking?
The question is simple:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground, measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
I am sure you can give a sensible answer.
Or am I wrong?
So why is the adjustment necessary?
You know, the GPS has been working for 50+ years, and every
satellite has been adjusted as stated above, so we know
the adjustment is necessary.
Sure it is.
The mean solar day is based on both the rotation of the earth
on its axis, (variable at the 10^-8 level)
and on the motion of the earth around the sun.
Variable at the 10^-10 level.
There is just no way at all that this can be improved
to atomic clock accuracy. (10^-15 nowadays, in the long term)
On 8/22/2025 8:20 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 21.08.2025 23:32, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/21/2025 9:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
-a > Den 21.08.2025 06:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
-a >> On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
-a >>
-a >>-a > GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
-a >>-a > so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
-a >>-a > to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
-a >>
-a >> Yeah, that's right --a real measurement is 86400 where
-a >> The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
-a >> of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
-a >>
-a >> No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
-a >> fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
-a >> they don't.
-a >
-a > One simple question:
-a >
-a > A clock running according to the SI definition of second
-a > will, when it is on the ground,-a measure a mean solar day
-a > to last 86400 s and stay in sync-a with the UTC.
-a >
-a > But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
-a > adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
-a > to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
-a >
-a > Why is that?
That's because the clocks are ruled by
common sense, not by some religious maniacs
mumbling about some delusional "laws of
nature" allegedly forcing these clocks
to run desynchronized.
I appreciate your sense of humour,
"clocks are ruled by common sense, not by laws of nature"
that's a good one! Efye
But can't you give a serious answer in stead of joking?
Wasn't joking at all. And clocks are informational
devices. Perfect clocks, like perfect Turing machines,
would ignore the nature completely.
The question is simple:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground,-a measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync-a with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
I am sure you can give a sensible answer.
Or am I wrong?
Surely you're not.
That's because your SI is some unusable for serious
applications and serious measurements ideological
nonsense.
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 22.08.2025 10:13, skrev J. J. Lodder:
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:Quite.
Den 21.08.2025 06:58, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
> so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
> to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
Yeah, that's right - real measurement is 86400 where
The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
they don't.
One simple question:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground, measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
You know, the GPS has been working for 50+ years, and every
satellite has been adjusted as stated above, so we know
the adjustment is necessary.
The whole discussion is completely pointless
until Wozzy specifies how he (or anybody else for that matter)
is going to measure the length of a mean solar day
to an accuracy of 10^-16
It just can't be done, [1]
Jan
[1] Even in the best possible case the mean solar day cannot be known
more accurately that the AU, so to about 10^-10
Remember that the AU had to be given a defined value
precisely because it couldn't be measured accurately enough.
There is no simple way to measure a mean solar day.
Once it was 24 hours on the pendulum clock at Greenwich.
Not really. The pendulum clock was adjusted to that result.
(by observing the fixed stars every night)
On 8/23/2025 10:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 22.08.2025 21:22, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
you don't evenYou caught me there!
know the difference between UTC and TAI and
GPS time.
Can you please teach me about UTC, TAI and GPS-time?
Are you really too stupid even for google?
That would be a surprise.
On 8/23/2025 10:15 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 22.08.2025 20:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/22/2025 8:20 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
-a > Den 21.08.2025 23:32, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
-a >> On 8/21/2025 9:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
-a >>-a > Den 21.08.2025 06:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
-a >>-a >> On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
-a >>-a >>
-a >>-a >>-a > GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
-a >>-a >>-a > so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
-a >>-a >>-a > to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
-a >>-a >>
-a >>-a >> Yeah, that's right --a real measurement is 86400 where
-a >>-a >> The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
-a >>-a >> of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
-a >>-a >>
-a >>-a >> No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
-a >>-a >> fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
-a >>-a >> they don't.
-a >>-a >
-a >>-a > One simple question:
-a >>-a >
-a >>-a > A clock running according to the SI definition of second
-a >>-a > will, when it is on the ground,-a measure a mean solar day
-a >>-a > to last 86400 s and stay in sync-a with the UTC.
-a >>-a >
-a >>-a > But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
-a >>-a > adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
-a >>-a > to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
-a >>-a >
-a >>-a > Why is that?
-a >>
-a >> That's because the clocks are ruled by
-a >> common sense, not by some religious maniacs
-a >> mumbling about some delusional "laws of
-a >> nature" allegedly forcing these clocks
-a >> to run desynchronized.
-a >
-a > I appreciate your sense of humour,
-a > "clocks are ruled by common sense, not by laws of nature"
-a > that's a good one! Efye
-a > But can't you give a serious answer in stead of joking?
Wasn't joking at all. And clocks are informational
devices. Perfect clocks, like perfect Turing machines,
would ignore the nature completely.
-a >
-a > The question is simple:
-a >
-a > A clock running according to the SI definition of second
-a > will, when it is on the ground,-a measure a mean solar day
-a > to last 86400 s and stay in sync-a with the UTC.
-a >
-a > But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
-a > adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
-a > to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
-a >
-a > Why is that?
-a >
-a > I am sure you can give a sensible answer.
-a > Or am I wrong?
Surely you're not.
So I wasn't wrong when I thought you could
give a sensible answer.
-a-a > That's because your SI is some unusable for serious
applications and serious measurements ideological
nonsense.
Joking again?
No, trash, sorry.
Not even you can be ignorant of the fact that SI is
the International System of Units, and all the units
in the metric system are defined by SI.
Keep dreaming about the alleged power of your
moronic church, trash.
The GPS second - the real second --a is equivalent
to your SI idiocy on Earth and is equivalent
to about (9 192 631 774/ 9 192 631 770) of
your idiocy-a at a GPS-a satellite. Do you deny
these numbers?
No. You rave, spit and slander. as expectedIs that why you call SI "idiocy"?
from a good relativistic doggie.
So why is the adjustment necessary?You know, the GPS has been working for 50+ years, and every
satellite has been adjusted as stated above, so we know
the adjustment is necessary.
Sure it is.
Because it's only in the gedanken tales
of your moronic religion that the clocks
somehow set themself correctly [what means
for idiots like you - the way your idiot
guru wants them]-a on their own, by some
alleged-a "laws of nature".
Why are you stating what you know is nonsense?
GPS is a real, working system, not a 'gedanken'
And its clocks are neither set on their
own nor to your moronic delusions.
.So you know the adjustment is necessary,
You know that the GPS clocks in the monitoring
stations on the ground are synchronous with the UTC.
You have correctly repeated several times that
all the GPS clocks in orbit are adjusted down
by (1 - 4.4647e-10) and are then synchronous
with the UTC.
So why is the adjustment necessary?
Right. Why is it necessary? Haven't your
worshipped idiot discovered that to achieve
sweet harmony with The Laws of Nature we
need desynchronized clocks? Haven't your
moronic experiments "confirmed" magnificient
advantages of such clocks?
So why is adjustment to make clocks synchronous
(indicating t'=t)-a necessary, poor fanatic trash?
And NOT WITH ANY UTC, poor fanatic trash.
So why is adjustment to make clocks synchronousSo you know the adjustment is necessary,
(indicating t'=t)-a necessary, poor fanatic trash?
And NOT WITH ANY UTC, poor fanatic trash.
but you don't know why?
Den 24.08.2025 00:26, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/23/2025 10:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 22.08.2025 21:22, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
you don't evenYou caught me there!
know the difference between UTC and TAI and
GPS time.
Can you please teach me about UTC, TAI and GPS-time?
Are you really too stupid even for google?
That would be a surprise.
You wouldn't have stated any of your stupidities if
you had known what TAI, UTC and GPS-time are.
If you look it up, you will not understand it.
I, OTOH, know, so I a don't have to look it up.
Le 24/08/2025 |a 23:43, "Paul B. Andersen" a |-crit :
..
So why is adjustment to make clocks synchronousSo you know the adjustment is necessary,
(indicating t'=t)-a necessary, poor fanatic trash?
And NOT WITH ANY UTC, poor fanatic trash.
but you don't know why?
"This is ERROR CORRECTION!!!!
Then arrived the nurses.
Den 24.08.2025 00:29, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:UTC.
On 8/23/2025 10:15 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 22.08.2025 20:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/22/2025 8:20 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 21.08.2025 23:32, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/21/2025 9:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 21.08.2025 06:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with
Yeah, that's right - real measurement is 86400 where
The Shit is predicting 86400+37us. Even such a piece
of lying shit as Paul is can't lie non stop...
No, sorry - explaining why measurements don't
fit your idiocy is not changing the fact that
they don't.
One simple question:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground, measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
That's because the clocks are ruled by
common sense, not by some religious maniacs
mumbling about some delusional "laws of
nature" allegedly forcing these clocks
to run desynchronized.
I appreciate your sense of humour,
"clocks are ruled by common sense, not by laws of nature"
that's a good one! Efye
But can't you give a serious answer in stead of joking?
Wasn't joking at all. And clocks are informational
devices. Perfect clocks, like perfect Turing machines,
would ignore the nature completely.
The question is simple:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground, measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s and stay in sync with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
I am sure you can give a sensible answer.
Or am I wrong?
Surely you're not.
So I wasn't wrong when I thought you could
give a sensible answer.
> That's because your SI is some unusable for serious
applications and serious measurements ideological
nonsense.
Joking again?
No, trash, sorry.
Not even you can be ignorant of the fact that SI is
the International System of Units, and all the units
in the metric system are defined by SI.
Keep dreaming about the alleged power of your
moronic church, trash.
The GPS second - the real second - is equivalent
to your SI idiocy on Earth and is equivalent
to about (9 192 631 774/ 9 192 631 770) of
your idiocy at a GPS satellite. Do you deny
these numbers?
And why does this make SI "idiocy"?
Is that why you call SI "idiocy"?
No. You rave, spit and slander. as expected
from a good relativistic doggie.
You know that all the metric units are defined by SI,
And its clocks are neither set on their
own nor to your moronic delusions.
So you call the adjustment you know is necessary
to make the GPS work for "Paul's moronic delusions".
So you know the adjustment is necessary,You know that the GPS clocks in the monitoring
stations on the ground are synchronous with the UTC.
You have correctly repeated several times that
all the GPS clocks in orbit are adjusted down
by (1 - 4.4647e-10) and are then synchronous
with the UTC.
So why is the adjustment necessary?
Right. Why is it necessary? Haven't your
worshipped idiot discovered that to achieve
sweet harmony with The Laws of Nature we
need desynchronized clocks? Haven't your
moronic experiments "confirmed" magnificient
advantages of such clocks?
So why is adjustment to make clocks synchronous
(indicating t'=t) necessary, poor fanatic trash?
And NOT WITH ANY UTC, poor fanatic trash.
but you don't know why?
On 8/24/2025 11:18 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 24.08.2025 00:26, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/23/2025 10:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 22.08.2025 21:22, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
you don't evenYou caught me there!
know the difference between UTC and TAI and
GPS time.
Can you please teach me about UTC, TAI and GPS-time?
Are you really too stupid even for google?
That would be a surprise.
You wouldn't have stated any of your stupidities if
you had known what TAI, UTC and GPS-time are.
If you look it up, you will not understand it.
I, OTOH, know, so I a don't have to look it up.
Oh, do you? And still insisting
that GPS clocks are in sync with UTC?
Well, your choice. poor trash.
Den 25.08.2025 06:19, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/24/2025 11:18 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 24.08.2025 00:26, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/23/2025 10:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 22.08.2025 21:22, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
you don't evenYou caught me there!
know the difference between UTC and TAI and
GPS time.
Can you please teach me about UTC, TAI and GPS-time?
Are you really too stupid even for google?
That would be a surprise.
You wouldn't have stated any of your stupidities if
you had known what TAI, UTC and GPS-time are.
If you look it up, you will not understand it.
I, OTOH, know, so I a don't have to look it up.
Oh, do you? And still insisting
that GPS clocks are in sync with UTC?
Well, your choice. poor trash.
Since you are such a nice guy I will give a serious answer.
TAI, UTC and GPS-time all run at the same rate as a clock
running according to the SI definition (SI-clock) placed
on the geoid.
They are all coordinate times in the non rotating Earth-centred
frame of reference, which means that the coordinate time
at any instant is the same everywhere in said frame of reference.
That means that SI-clocks will not generally run synchronous
with TAI, UTC or GPS-time.
TAI (International Atomic Time) is the average of more than
450 Atomic clocks distributed around the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time
UTC is based on TAI, but since the rotation of the Earth
varies and seems to slow down, leap seconds are inserted
as needed to (loosely) keep UTC in sync with the solar mean
time at longitude 0.
UTC is currently 27 seconds behind TAI.
GPS-time is the time sent to the receiver by the SV (space vehicle).
It is the same as TAI.
calculation of the position.(Who would want a wristwatch which always is 27 seconds fast?)
The SV will however also send the UTC to the receiver, because
the receivers and GPS-watches will display the UTC, not the GPS-time.
So yes, the UTC sent to the receiver from the GPS satellite
is in sync with UTC.
On 8/24/2025 11:44 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 24.08.2025 00:29, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/23/2025 10:15 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
-a >
-a > Not even you can be ignorant of the fact that SI is
-a > the International System of Units, and all the units
-a > in the metric system are defined by SI.
Keep dreaming about the alleged power of your
moronic church, trash.
The GPS second - the real second --a is equivalent
to your SI idiocy on Earth and is equivalent
to about (9 192 631 774/ 9 192 631 770) of
your idiocy-a at a GPS-a satellite. Do you deny
these numbers?
And why does this make SI "idiocy"?
It doesn't make it idiocy.-a It just shows
it's idiocy unusable for serious measurements.
You know that all the metric units are defined by SI,
No, they are not. The real second is,
as shown above, ignoring the absurd
commands of your absurd church.
Surprise!
-a > You know that the GPS clocks in the monitoringSo you know the adjustment is necessary,
-a > stations on the ground are synchronous with the UTC.
-a > You have correctly repeated several times that
-a > all the GPS clocks in orbit are adjusted down
-a > by (1 - 4.4647e-10) and are then synchronous
-a > with the UTC.
-a >
-a > So why is the adjustment necessary?
Right. Why is it necessary? Haven't your
worshipped idiot discovered that to achieve
sweet harmony with The Laws of Nature we
need desynchronized clocks? Haven't your
moronic experiments "confirmed" magnificient
advantages of such clocks?
So why is adjustment to make clocks synchronous
(indicating t'=t)-a necessary, poor fanatic trash?
And NOT WITH ANY UTC, poor fanatic trash.
but you don't know why?
I do know why. It's because clocks have
more important things to do than helping
idiots from your church to onanize with
their incredible wisdom.
Den 25.08.2025 06:37, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/24/2025 11:44 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 24.08.2025 00:29, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/23/2025 10:15 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Not even you can be ignorant of the fact that SI is
the International System of Units, and all the units
in the metric system are defined by SI.
Keep dreaming about the alleged power of your
moronic church, trash.
The GPS second - the real second - is equivalent
to your SI idiocy on Earth and is equivalent
to about (9 192 631 774/ 9 192 631 770) of
your idiocy at a GPS satellite. Do you deny
these numbers?
And why does this make SI "idiocy"?
It doesn't make it idiocy. It just shows
it's idiocy unusable for serious measurements.
Like measuring a distance in metres or a speed in metres per second?
You know that all the metric units are defined by SI,
No, they are not. The real second is,
as shown above, ignoring the absurd
commands of your absurd church.
Surprise!
Not at all!
I was lying when I said that you know something, because
I know that you know nothing and are unable to learn.
So you know the adjustment is necessary,You know that the GPS clocks in the monitoring
stations on the ground are synchronous with the UTC.
You have correctly repeated several times that
all the GPS clocks in orbit are adjusted down
by (1 - 4.4647e-10) and are then synchronous
with the UTC.
So why is the adjustment necessary?
Right. Why is it necessary? Haven't your
worshipped idiot discovered that to achieve
sweet harmony with The Laws of Nature we
need desynchronized clocks? Haven't your
moronic experiments "confirmed" magnificient
advantages of such clocks?
So why is adjustment to make clocks synchronous
(indicating t'=t) necessary, poor fanatic trash?
And NOT WITH ANY UTC, poor fanatic trash.
but you don't know why?
I do know why. It's because clocks have
more important things to do than helping
idiots from your church to onanize with
their incredible wisdom.
So you don't know why.
They are all coordinate times in the non rotating Earth-centred
frame of reference, which means that the coordinate time
at any instant is the same everywhere in said frame of reference.
On 8/25/2025 9:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Since you are such a nice guy I will give a serious answer.
TAI, UTC and GPS-time all run at the same rate as a clock
running according to the SI definition (SI-clock) placed
on the geoid.
They are all coordinate times in the non rotating Earth-centred
frame of reference, which means that the coordinate time
at any instant is the same everywhere in said frame of reference.
That means that SI-clocks will not generally run synchronous
with TAI, UTC or GPS-time.
TAI (International Atomic Time) is the average of more than
450 Atomic clocks distributed around the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time
UTC is based on TAI, but since the rotation of the Earth
varies and seems to slow down, leap seconds are inserted
as needed to (loosely) keep UTC in sync with the solar mean
time at longitude 0.
UTC is currently 27 seconds behind TAI.
Wrong, trash, keep learnig.
GPS-time is the time sent to the receiver by the SV (space vehicle).
It is the same as TAI.
Wrong, trash, keep learning.
But I admit, the progress is
significant.
-aThis is the time the GPS receiver use to
calculation of the position.(Who would want a wristwatch which always is 27 seconds fast?)
The SV will however also send the UTC to the receiver, because
the receivers and GPS-watches will display the UTC, not the GPS-time.
So yes, the UTC sent to the receiver from the GPS satellite
is in sync with UTC.
See the Interface Control Document: https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
20.3.3.5.1.6 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) Parameters
page 120
Great, UTC is in sync with UTC, can't deny that.The atomic clocks on the ground must be running according to
GPS clocks are not. Sorry, trash.
Den 25.08.2025 22:03, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/25/2025 9:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Since you are such a nice guy I will give a serious answer.
TAI, UTC and GPS-time all run at the same rate as a clock
running according to the SI definition (SI-clock) placed
on the geoid.
They are all coordinate times in the non rotating Earth-centred
frame of reference, which means that the coordinate time
at any instant is the same everywhere in said frame of reference.
That means that SI-clocks will not generally run synchronous
with TAI, UTC or GPS-time.
TAI (International Atomic Time) is the average of more than
450 Atomic clocks distributed around the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time
All the atomic clocks in the TAI network have
the SI-definition built in.
UTC is currently 27 seconds behind TAI.
Wrong, trash, keep learnig.
You are quite funny in your stupidity. :-D
GPS-time is the time sent to the receiver by the SV (space vehicle).
It is the same as TAI.
Wrong, trash, keep learning.
But I admit, the progress is
significant.
Did you possibly fail to read the Interface Control Document? https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
Great, UTC is in sync with UTC, can't deny that.The atomic clocks on the ground must be running according to
GPS clocks are not. Sorry, trash.
the SI-definition to be synchronous with UTC.
But the atomic clocks in the GPS satellites have to be adjusted
to run (1-4.4647e-10) slower than the SI-definition to be
synchronous with UTC.
Do you know why?
Den 22.08.2025 20:53, skrev J. J. Lodder:
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Quite.The whole discussion is completely pointlessuntil Wozzy specifies how he (or anybody else for that matter)
is going to measure the length of a mean solar day
to an accuracy of 10^-16
It just can't be done, [1]
Jan
[1] Even in the best possible case the mean solar day cannot be known
more accurately that the AU, so to about 10^-10
Remember that the AU had to be given a defined value
precisely because it couldn't be measured accurately enough.
There is no simple way to measure a mean solar day.
Once it was 24 hours on the pendulum clock at Greenwich.
Not really. The pendulum clock was adjusted to that result.
(by observing the fixed stars every night)
The stars and Sun were observed for centuries at Greenwich.
And of course the pendulum clock at Greenwich was adjusted
so that the Sun was in the meridian at noon at the equinooxes,
when the mean Sun and the real Sun are colocated.
The clock at Greenwich was the standard clock of the world,
and the GMT was the mean solar time.
On 8/26/2025 10:53 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 25.08.2025 22:03, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/25/2025 9:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Since you are such a nice guy I will give a serious answer.
TAI, UTC and GPS-time all run at the same rate as a clock
running according to the SI definition (SI-clock) placed
on the geoid.
They are all coordinate times in the non rotating Earth-centred
frame of reference, which means that the coordinate time
at any instant is the same everywhere in said frame of reference.
That means that SI-clocks will not generally run synchronous
with TAI, UTC or GPS-time.
TAI (International Atomic Time) is the average of more than
450 Atomic clocks distributed around the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time
All the atomic clocks in the TAI network have
the SI-definition built in.
A lie. Of course. Average - even an idiot
like you must know what the word mean. The
second of TAI is longer than SI second
counted by some clocks and shorter than
SI second counted by some other clocks.
UTC is currently 27 seconds behind TAI.
Wrong, trash, keep learnig.
You are quite funny in your stupidity. :-D
Maybe I am or maybe not, it's 37s anyway.
GPS-time is the time sent to the receiver by the SV (space vehicle). >>> -a> It is the same as TAI.
Wrong, trash, keep learning.
But I admit, the progress is
significant.
Did you possibly fail to read the Interface Control Document?
https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
GPS time is-a 19s different from TAI.-a Keep
learnig, trash.
Great, UTC is in sync with UTC, can't deny that.
GPS clocks are not. Sorry, trash.
The atomic clocks on the ground must be running according to
the SI-definition to be synchronous with UTC.
No. As said, TAi second on the ground
is not SI second-a too.
Now you are returning to your habit of babbling nonsense.But the atomic clocks in the GPS satellites have to be adjusted
to run (1-4.4647e-10) slower than the SI-definition to be
synchronous with UTC.
Do you know why?
Yes, I've written you the reason several times.
Basically - it's because sane people fuck the
Laws of Nature (announced in the name of nature
by your idiot guru) and fuck your religious SI
nonsense.
Den 26.08.2025 11:51, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/26/2025 10:53 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 25.08.2025 22:03, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/25/2025 9:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Since you are such a nice guy I will give a serious answer.
TAI, UTC and GPS-time all run at the same rate as a clock
running according to the SI definition (SI-clock) placed
on the geoid.
They are all coordinate times in the non rotating Earth-centred
frame of reference, which means that the coordinate time
at any instant is the same everywhere in said frame of reference.
That means that SI-clocks will not generally run synchronous
with TAI, UTC or GPS-time.
TAI (International Atomic Time) is the average of more than
450 Atomic clocks distributed around the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time
All the atomic clocks in the TAI network have
the SI-definition built in.
A lie. Of course. Average - even an idiot
like you must know what the word mean. The
second of TAI is longer than SI second
counted by some clocks and shorter than
SI second counted by some other clocks.
It is interesting to see that you are trying to make sense.
Progression! :-)
But is true that all atomic clocks in the TAI network
have the SI-definition built in. https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Atomic_Time
"The TAI second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods
-aof the radiation corresponding to the transition
-abetween-a the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
-athe Cesium 133 atom.
"
That means that a TAI-second is _exactly_ equal to the SI-definition.
So now you know that it is the SI-definition of second
that is used in TAI, don't you?
The synchronisation of the TAI clocks is very complex.
UTC is currently 27 seconds behind TAI.
Wrong, trash, keep learnig.
You are quite funny in your stupidity. :-D
Maybe I am or maybe not, it's 37s anyway.
So you have looked it up and caught my typo.
GPS-time is the time sent to the receiver by the SV (space vehicle). >>>> -a> It is the same as TAI.
Wrong, trash, keep learning.
But I admit, the progress is
significant.
Did you possibly fail to read the Interface Control Document?
https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
GPS time is-a 19s different from TAI.-a Keep
learnig, trash.
Right!
Nice to see that you are looking things up and are trying
to make sense, not only babbling nonsense!
Now you are returning to your habit of babbling nonsense.
But the atomic clocks in the GPS satellites have to be adjusted
to run (1-4.4647e-10) slower than the SI-definition to be
synchronous with UTC.
Do you know why?
Yes, I've written you the reason several times.
Basically - it's because sane people fuck the
Laws of Nature (announced in the name of nature
by your idiot guru) and fuck your religious SI
nonsense.
But I am sure you can think if you allow yourself to do it!
So think!
It is a fact that the atomic clocks in GPS-orbit must
be adjusted down by the factor (1-4.4647e-10) to be
synchronous with UTC and with atomic clocks on the ground.
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
The clock at Greenwich was the standard clock of the world,
and the GMT was the mean solar time.
Complete nonsense.
Each observatory had its own standard clock,
and its own standard time.
There just was no way to transport time.
There was no such thing as 'standard clock of the world',
let alone that it could have been found in Greenwich.
You are confusing the standard meridian of Greenwich,
(which everone agreed upon)
with a standard clock.
(which each observatory maintained for itself)
Captains took their standard time from the last port
(with an observatory)
they had departed from, not from Greenwich,
(because there was no way for them to do so)
For example, when they arrived at Cape Town (from London)
they took their time from the time signal at the observatory there,
Jan
Den 26.08.2025 21:02, skrev J. J. Lodder:
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
The clock at Greenwich was the standard clock of the world,
and the GMT was the mean solar time.
Complete nonsense.
Each observatory had its own standard clock,
and its own standard time.
There just was no way to transport time.
There was no such thing as 'standard clock of the world',
let alone that it could have been found in Greenwich.
You are confusing the standard meridian of Greenwich,
(which everone agreed upon)
with a standard clock.
(which each observatory maintained for itself)
Captains took their standard time from the last port
(with an observatory)
they had departed from, not from Greenwich,
(because there was no way for them to do so)
For example, when they arrived at Cape Town (from London)
they took their time from the time signal at the observatory there,
Jan
You are grossly underestimating the position of GMT.
https://tinyurl.com/26b9a3am
" GMT: The Time Standard
The Need for Standardization
With the expansion of the British Empire and the growth of
international trade, there was a need for a standardized
time system. Local mean time, based on the position of
he sun, varied from place to place, causing confusion in
scheduling and communication. GMT provided a consistent
reference, set by the mean solar time at the Royal Observatory.
The Adoption of GMT
In 1884, the International Meridian Conference in Washington, D.C.,
established the prime meridian at Greenwich. GMT was adopted as
the world's standard time. This decision was based on the
observatory's long history of accurate timekeeping and its
significance in navigation. By the early 20th century, GMT had
become the standard for timekeeping in Britain and many other
countries.
Greenwich Mean Time was the time shown by the pendulum clocks
at Greenwich.
There you have it. "they estabished the prime meridian at Greenwich"
(easy, it is an engraved line in a brass plate on the ground, nowadays
at about 100 meter from the GPS zero)
Greenwich Mean Time was the time shown by the pendulum clocks at
Greenwich.
Yes. As best they could, not by definition.
Unfortunately people at, say Cape Town for example,
never succeeded in reading those pendulum clocks over there.
They had to have their own,
and they had to measure their deviation from Greenwich,
aka their longitude, as best they could.
Greenwich time was no more than a reference in name. Jan
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 26.08.2025 21:02, skrev J. J. Lodder:
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:You are grossly underestimating the position of GMT.
The clock at Greenwich was the standard clock of the world,
and the GMT was the mean solar time.
Complete nonsense.
Each observatory had its own standard clock,
and its own standard time.
There just was no way to transport time.
There was no such thing as 'standard clock of the world',
let alone that it could have been found in Greenwich.
You are confusing the standard meridian of Greenwich,
(which everone agreed upon)
with a standard clock.
(which each observatory maintained for itself)
Captains took their standard time from the last port
(with an observatory)
they had departed from, not from Greenwich,
(because there was no way for them to do so)
For example, when they arrived at Cape Town (from London)
they took their time from the time signal at the observatory there,
Jan
https://tinyurl.com/26b9a3am
" GMT: The Time Standard
The Need for Standardization
With the expansion of the British Empire and the growth of
international trade, there was a need for a standardized
time system. Local mean time, based on the position of
he sun, varied from place to place, causing confusion in
scheduling and communication. GMT provided a consistent
reference, set by the mean solar time at the Royal Observatory.
The Adoption of GMT
In 1884, the International Meridian Conference in Washington, D.C.,
established the prime meridian at Greenwich. GMT was adopted as
the world's standard time. This decision was based on the
observatory's long history of accurate timekeeping and its
significance in navigation. By the early 20th century, GMT had
become the standard for timekeeping in Britain and many other
countries.
There you have it. "they estabished the prime meridian at Greenwich"
(easy, it is an engraved line in a brass plate on the ground,
nowadays at about 100 meter from the GPS zero)
Greenwich Mean Time was the time shown by the pendulum clocks
at Greenwich.
Yes. As best they could, not by definition.
Unfortunately people at, say Cape Town for example,
never succeeded in reading those pendulum clocks over there.
They had to have their own,
and they had to measure their deviation from Greenwich,
aka their longitude, as best they could.
Greenwich time was no more than a reference in name.
Jan
FYA, I used Cape Town as an example because they have a 200+ year old tradition of firing a 'noon gun' daily, as a time signal
for the captains of the ships in the bay.
They keep it up, despite it being no longer useful.
Their guns are the oldest still functioning guns in the world.
On 8/27/2025 12:00 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
It is true that all atomic clocks in the TAI network
have the SI-definition built in.
https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Atomic_Time
"The TAI second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods
-a-aof the radiation corresponding to the transition
-a-abetween-a the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
-a-athe Cesium 133 atom.
"
That means that a TAI-second is _exactly_ equal to the SI-definition.
So it is wrong, or at least simplified.
No, TAI second is NOT your SI idiocy.
If they applied your idiocy they would
have no synchronization.
That's what-a SI definition was invented
for - enforcing fulfilling those moronic
prophecies about desynchronized (not
indicating t'=t) clocks. Of course -
The Shit had never any real chance for
that. It was obvious it's mad commands
will be ignored, common sense has been
warning.
Den 27.08.2025 14:02, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/27/2025 12:00 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
It is true that all atomic clocks in the TAI network
have the SI-definition built in.
https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Atomic_Time
"The TAI second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods
-a-aof the radiation corresponding to the transition
-a-abetween-a the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
-a-athe Cesium 133 atom.
"
That means that a TAI-second is _exactly_ equal to the SI-definition.
So it is wrong, or at least simplified.
No, TAI second is NOT your SI idiocy.
If they applied your idiocy they would
have no synchronization.
This is meaningless nonsense, and you know it.
You are not trying to make sense.
---
If you have at least some knowledge of physics,
you will understand the following:
All clocks consists of an oscillator and a counter.
In an atomic clock, the oscillator is the radiation
corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine
energy levels in an an atom. If the the atom is Cs-133,
then the frequency of this oscillator is 9192631770 Hz
by definition.
So if you have a modulo 9192631770 counter
you will get one tick every second.
Clocks, whether they are quartz clocks or atomic clocks,
will always and everywhere run at the same rate.
They will tick once each second whether they are at the ground
or in a GPS satellite.
If you don't understand and accept this, you are too ignorant
to understand anything related to physics, and you will not
be able to state anything sensible even if you try.
If you are able to reason and do understand the above, you will
see that the following statement of yours is ridiculous:
That's what-a SI definition was invented
for - enforcing fulfilling those moronic
prophecies about desynchronized (not
indicating t'=t) clocks. Of course -
The Shit had never any real chance for
that. It was obvious it's mad commands
will be ignored, common sense has been
warning.
Are all clocks, including your wristwatch, invented
to fulfil the predictions of SR and GR?
On 8/28/2025 7:54 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 27.08.2025 14:02, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/27/2025 12:00 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
It is true that all atomic clocks in the TAI network
have the SI-definition built in.
https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Atomic_Time
"The TAI second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods
-a-aof the radiation corresponding to the transition
-a-abetween-a the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
-a-athe Cesium 133 atom.
"
That means that a TAI-second is _exactly_ equal to the SI-definition.
So it is wrong, or at least simplified.
No, TAI second is NOT your SI idiocy.
If they applied your idiocy they would
have no synchronization.
This is meaningless nonsense, and you know it.
You are not trying to make sense.
No it is not.
If you had any contact with any reality, you
would understand the following:
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
Le 28/08/2025 |a 21:22, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/28/2025 7:54 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 27.08.2025 14:02, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/27/2025 12:00 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
It is true that all atomic clocks in the TAI network
have the SI-definition built in.
https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Atomic_Time
"The TAI second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods
-a-aof the radiation corresponding to the transition
-a-abetween-a the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
-a-athe Cesium 133 atom.
"
That means that a TAI-second is _exactly_ equal to the SI-definition. >>>>
So it is wrong, or at least simplified.
No, TAI second is NOT your SI idiocy.
If they applied your idiocy they would
have no synchronization.
This is meaningless nonsense, and you know it.
You are not trying to make sense.
No it is not.
It is. Paul is wrong then: you are TRYING to make sense. But you fail.
If you had any contact with any reality, you
would understand the following:
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
We all know how much "contact with any reality" you have since you've
posted that you are "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had" :-)
We may check out of the rants you post here every single day for *years*
if you had any kind of realizations publicly available. So far I've
heard nothing more that if you had to synchronize clocks you would ask someone else to do it :-)))
On 8/28/2025 10:09 PM, Python wrote:
Le 28/08/2025 |a 21:22, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/28/2025 7:54 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 27.08.2025 14:02, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/27/2025 12:00 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
It is true that all atomic clocks in the TAI network
have the SI-definition built in.
https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Atomic_Time
"The TAI second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods
-a-aof the radiation corresponding to the transition
-a-abetween-a the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
-a-athe Cesium 133 atom.
"
That means that a TAI-second is _exactly_ equal to the SI-definition. >>>>>
So it is wrong, or at least simplified.
No, TAI second is NOT your SI idiocy.
If they applied your idiocy they would
have no synchronization.
This is meaningless nonsense, and you know it.
You are not trying to make sense.
No it is not.
It is. Paul is wrong then: you are TRYING to make sense. But you fail.
If you had any contact with any reality, you
would understand the following:
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
We all know how much "contact with any reality" you have since you've
posted that you are "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had" :-)
We may check out of the rants you post here every single day for *years*
if you had any kind of realizations publicly available. So far I've
heard nothing more that if you had to synchronize clocks you would ask
someone else to do it :-)))
See, poor stinker - I've proven [SR/GR]
to be not even consistent, and you can do nothing
about it apart of ...
Den 27.08.2025 21:14, skrev J. J. Lodder:
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 26.08.2025 21:02, skrev J. J. Lodder:
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:You are grossly underestimating the position of GMT.
The clock at Greenwich was the standard clock of the world,
and the GMT was the mean solar time.
Complete nonsense.
Each observatory had its own standard clock,
and its own standard time.
There just was no way to transport time.
There was no such thing as 'standard clock of the world',
let alone that it could have been found in Greenwich.
You are confusing the standard meridian of Greenwich,
(which everone agreed upon)
with a standard clock.
(which each observatory maintained for itself)
Captains took their standard time from the last port
(with an observatory)
they had departed from, not from Greenwich,
(because there was no way for them to do so)
For example, when they arrived at Cape Town (from London)
they took their time from the time signal at the observatory there,
Jan
https://tinyurl.com/26b9a3am
" GMT: The Time Standard
The Need for Standardization
With the expansion of the British Empire and the growth of
international trade, there was a need for a standardized
time system. Local mean time, based on the position of
he sun, varied from place to place, causing confusion in
scheduling and communication. GMT provided a consistent
reference, set by the mean solar time at the Royal Observatory.
The Adoption of GMT
In 1884, the International Meridian Conference in Washington, D.C.,
established the prime meridian at Greenwich. GMT was adopted as
the world's standard time. This decision was based on the
observatory's long history of accurate timekeeping and its
significance in navigation. By the early 20th century, GMT had
become the standard for timekeeping in Britain and many other
countries.
There you have it. "they estabished the prime meridian at Greenwich"
(easy, it is an engraved line in a brass plate on the ground,
nowadays at about 100 meter from the GPS zero)
"GMT was adopted as the world's standard time."
Den 27.08.2025 14:02, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
So it is wrong, or at least simplified.
No, TAI second is NOT your SI idiocy.
If they applied your idiocy they would have no synchronization.
This is meaningless nonsense, and you know it.
You are not trying to make sense.
If you have at least some knowledge of physics, you will understand the following:
All clocks consists of an oscillator and a counter.
In your wristwatch the oscillator is probably based on a quartz crystal.
If the frequency of this quartz crystal oscillator is - say 32.768 kHz,
you need a modulo 32768 counter to make it tick once every second.
[1] The actual reason Greenwich won out over Paris was the quality and general use of their almanacs.
(much to the chagrin of the French, who felt
that they had a historical right to the meridian)
Le 28/08/2025 |a 22:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/28/2025 10:09 PM, Python wrote:
Le 28/08/2025 |a 21:22, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/28/2025 7:54 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 27.08.2025 14:02, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/27/2025 12:00 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
It is true that all atomic clocks in the TAI network
have the SI-definition built in.
https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Atomic_Time
"The TAI second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods
-a-aof the radiation corresponding to the transition
-a-abetween-a the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
-a-athe Cesium 133 atom.
"
That means that a TAI-second is _exactly_ equal to the SI-
definition.
So it is wrong, or at least simplified.
No, TAI second is NOT your SI idiocy.
If they applied your idiocy they would
have no synchronization.
This is meaningless nonsense, and you know it.
You are not trying to make sense.
No it is not.
It is. Paul is wrong then: you are TRYING to make sense. But you fail.
If you had any contact with any reality, you
would understand the following:
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
We all know how much "contact with any reality" you have since you've
posted that you are "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had" :-)
We may check out of the rants you post here every single day for
*years* if you had any kind of realizations publicly available. So
far I've heard nothing more that if you had to synchronize clocks you
would ask someone else to do it :-)))
See, poor stinker - I've proven [SR/GR]
to be not even consistent, and you can do nothing
about it apart of ...
Refuting your pathetic claims? This is what I did :-)
On 8/28/2025 7:54 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
If you have at least some knowledge of physics,
you will understand the following:
All clocks consists of an oscillator and a counter.
If you had any contact with any reality, you
would understand the following:
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
In your wristwatch the oscillator is probably based
on a quartz crystal. If the frequency of this
quartz crystal oscillator is - say 32.768 kHz,
you need a modulo 32768 counter to make it tick
once every second.
In an atomic clock, the oscillator is the radiation
corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine
energy levels in an an atom. If the the atom is Cs-133,
then the frequency of this oscillator is 9192631770 Hz
by definition.
Unfortunately, it is 9192631774 in a GPS satellite.
> On Earth, on a GPS satellite it is modulo 9192631774.So if you have a modulo 9192631770 counter
you will get one tick every second.
Both these clocks are running according to the SI-definition,
advancing one SI second each second, the difference is the precision.
The quartz clock can be expected to be a few seconds wrong
after a year, while the atomic clock can be expected to be
few ns (or less) wrong after a year.
Clocks, whether they are quartz clocks or atomic clocks,
will always and everywhere run at the same rate.
They will tick once each second whether they are at the ground
or in a GPS satellite.
Rave and spit, trash, the facts won't go away.
The real measurement results are not matching
your beloved Shit and you're even stupid
enough to admit it occasionally.
If you don't understand and accept this, you are too ignorant
to understand anything related to physics, and you will not
be able to state anything sensible even if you try.
Den 28.08.2025 21:22, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/28/2025 7:54 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
If you have at least some knowledge of physics,
you will understand the following:
All clocks consists of an oscillator and a counter.
If you had any contact with any reality, you
would understand the following:
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
In your wristwatch the oscillator is probably based
on a quartz crystal. If the frequency of this
quartz crystal oscillator is - say 32.768 kHz,
you need a modulo 32768 counter to make it tick
once every second.
In an atomic clock, the oscillator is the radiation
corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine
energy levels in an an atom. If the the atom is Cs-133,
then the frequency of this oscillator is 9192631770 Hz
by definition.
Unfortunately, it is 9192631774 in a GPS satellite.
And what is the SI definition of second in a Galileo satellite?
Le 28/08/2025 a 21:22, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :
On 8/28/2025 7:54 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 27.08.2025 14:02, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 8/27/2025 12:00 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
It is true that all atomic clocks in the TAI network
have the SI-definition built in.
https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Atomic_Time
"The TAI second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods
of the radiation corresponding to the transition
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
the Cesium 133 atom.
"
That means that a TAI-second is _exactly_ equal to the SI-definition. >>>
So it is wrong, or at least simplified.
No, TAI second is NOT your SI idiocy.
If they applied your idiocy they would
have no synchronization.
This is meaningless nonsense, and you know it.
You are not trying to make sense.
No it is not.
It is. Paul is wrong then: you are TRYING to make sense. But you fail.
If you had any contact with any reality, you
would understand the following:
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
We all know how much "contact with any reality" you have since you've
posted that you are "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had" :-)
Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:..
We all know how much "contact with any reality" you have since you've
posted that you are "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had" :-)
Right. Someone who is that clueless can only make sense to himself,
Le 29/08/2025 |a 20:41, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a |-crit :
Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:..
We all know how much "contact with any reality" you have since you've
posted that you are "one of the best logicians Humanity ever had" :-)
Right. Someone who is that clueless can only make sense to himself,
Same level of delusion Hachel has.
Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:
Le 28/08/2025 |a 21:22, Maciej Wo?niak a |-crit :
On 8/28/2025 7:54 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 27.08.2025 14:02, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 8/27/2025 12:00 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
It is true that all atomic clocks in the TAI network
have the SI-definition built in.
https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Atomic_Time
"The TAI second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods
of the radiation corresponding to the transition
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
the Cesium 133 atom.
"
That means that a TAI-second is _exactly_ equal to the SI-definition. >>>>>
So it is wrong, or at least simplified.
No, TAI second is NOT your SI idiocy.
If they applied your idiocy they would
have no synchronization.
This is meaningless nonsense, and you know it.
You are not trying to make sense.
No it is not.
It is. Paul is wrong then: you are TRYING to make sense. But you fail.
I agree with Paul. Before you can even begin to try to make sense
you need to have at least some idea of what it is all about.
Since Wozzy hasn't the faitest idea of what TAI actually is
he cannot begin to try to make sense of it.
Right. Someone who is that clueless can only make sense to himself,
On 8/29/2025 2:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 28.08.2025 21:22, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/28/2025 7:54 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
In an atomic clock, the oscillator is the radiation
corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine
energy levels in an an atom. If the the atom is Cs-133,
then the frequency of this oscillator is 9192631770 Hz
by definition.
Unfortunately, it is 9192631774 in a GPS satellite.
And what is the SI definition of second in a Galileo satellite?
Nobody sane cares.But he doesn't care of what it is. :-D
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.
Den 29.08.2025 15:16, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/29/2025 2:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 28.08.2025 21:22, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/28/2025 7:54 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
In an atomic clock, the oscillator is the radiation
corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine
energy levels in an an atom. If the the atom is Cs-133,
then the frequency of this oscillator is 9192631770 Hz
by definition.
Unfortunately, it is 9192631774 in a GPS satellite.
Maciej Wo+|niak claims that the SI-defintion of second is
different for different atomic clocks.
-a"The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time.
-a It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of
-a the caesium frequency +o++Cs, the unperturbed ground-state
-a hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium-133 atom,
-a to be 9 192 631 770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which
-a is equal to 1/s.
-a"
. . is obviously like defining sharks to be grass eaters.
This SI definition is obviously made to enforce the absurd
General Theory of Relativity on the rest of the world.
But GR is too stupid to succeed anyway, it will
never be accepted by the rest of the world!
Right?
On 8/30/2025 11:56 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
This SI definition is obviously made to enforce the absurd General
Theory of Relativity on the rest of the world.
Yes, it was, poor trash. Sorry, poor trash. Fortunately - nobody serious cares about the nonsense, anyone can check GPS, the real second is 9 192
631 770 on Earth and 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 8/30/2025 11:56 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
This SI definition is obviously made to enforce the absurd General
Theory of Relativity on the rest of the world.
Yes, it was, poor trash. Sorry, poor trash. Fortunately - nobody serious
cares about the nonsense, anyone can check GPS, the real second is 9 192
631 770 on Earth and 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.
idiot, if you really check and care about, those numbers are the same.
On 8/30/2025 12:28 PM, Tharon Turlapov wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 8/30/2025 11:56 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
This SI definition is obviously made to enforce the absurd General
Theory of Relativity on the rest of the world.
Yes, it was, poor trash. Sorry, poor trash. Fortunately - nobody
serious cares about the nonsense, anyone can check GPS, the real
second is 9 192 631 770 on Earth and 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.
idiot, if you really check and care about, those numbers are the same.
No, idiot, 9 192 631 774 is 4 more than 9 192 631 770.
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 8/30/2025 12:28 PM, Tharon Turlapov wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 8/30/2025 11:56 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
This SI definition is obviously made to enforce the absurd General
Theory of Relativity on the rest of the world.
Yes, it was, poor trash. Sorry, poor trash. Fortunately - nobody
serious cares about the nonsense, anyone can check GPS, the real
second is 9 192 631 770 on Earth and 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.
idiot, if you really check and care about, those numbers are the same.
No, idiot, 9 192 631 774 is 4 more than 9 192 631 770.
what DSP capable device are you using to make sure, idiot. Put up some proofs, or shut up. We work with hard proofs in relativity.
On 8/30/2025 1:04 PM, Micha Wojew||dka wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 8/30/2025 12:28 PM, Tharon Turlapov wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 8/30/2025 11:56 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:idiot, if you really check and care about, those numbers are the same.
This SI definition is obviously made to enforce the absurd General >>>>>> Theory of Relativity on the rest of the world.
Yes, it was, poor trash. Sorry, poor trash. Fortunately - nobody
serious cares about the nonsense, anyone can check GPS, the real
second is 9 192 631 770 on Earth and 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite. >>>>
No, idiot, 9 192 631 774 is 4 more than 9 192 631 770.
what DSP capable device are you using to make sure, idiot. Put up some
proofs, or shut up. We work with hard proofs in relativity.
Show me then your hard proof of
"We work with hard proofs in relativity."
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
what DSP capable device are you using to make sure, idiot. Put up some
proofs, or shut up. We work with hard proofs in relativity.
Show me then your hard proof of "We work with hard proofs in
relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
I wonder if you noticed, given how strong your grip on reality is, that
you are arguing with the resident "'nymshifting troll".
Are you yelling at clouds in Poland also?
Python wrote:
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
what DSP capable device are you using to make sure, idiot. Put up some >>>> proofs, or shut up. We work with hard proofs in relativity.
Show me then your hard proof of "We work with hard proofs in
relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
I wonder if you noticed, given how strong your grip on reality is, that
you are arguing with the resident "'nymshifting troll".
Are you yelling at clouds in Poland also?
I strongly believe that "troll" fucked your mother in she ass frequently,
in front of you, then paid nothing, you stupid puerile unskilled and uneducated troll. You frogs are all depraved gays in that allocated region of the territory.
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/30/2025 1:04 PM, Micha Wojew||dka wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 8/30/2025 12:28 PM, Tharon Turlapov wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:No, idiot, 9 192 631 774 is 4 more than 9 192 631 770.
On 8/30/2025 11:56 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
This SI definition is obviously made to enforce the absurd General >>>>>>> Theory of Relativity on the rest of the world.
Yes, it was, poor trash. Sorry, poor trash. Fortunately - nobody
serious cares about the nonsense, anyone can check GPS, the real
second is 9 192 631 770 on Earth and 9 192 631 774 on a GPS
satellite.
idiot, if you really check and care about, those numbers are the same. >>>>
what DSP capable device are you using to make sure, idiot. Put up some
proofs, or shut up. We work with hard proofs in relativity.
Show me then your hard proof of
"We work with hard proofs in relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
I wonder if you noticed, given how strong your grip on reality is, that
you are arguing with the resident "'nymshifting troll".
Are you yelling at clouds in Poland also?
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:51, Joshawa L|-cuyer a |-crit :
Python wrote:
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
what DSP capable device are you using to make sure, idiot. Put up
some proofs, or shut up. We work with hard proofs in relativity.
Show me then your hard proof of "We work with hard proofs in
relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
I wonder if you noticed, given how strong your grip on reality is,
that you are arguing with the resident "'nymshifting troll".
Are you yelling at clouds in Poland also?
I strongly believe that "troll" fucked your mother in she ass
frequently, in front of you, then paid nothing, you stupid puerile
unskilled and uneducated troll. You frogs are all depraved gays in that
allocated region of the territory.
Your account on Eternal September will be shut down soon
On 8/30/2025 1:04 PM, Micha Wojew||dka wrote:
what DSP capable device are you using to make sure, idiot. Put upShow me then your hard proof of "We work with hard proofs in
some proofs, or shut up. We work with hard proofs in relativity.
relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by your bunch of
idiots improper clocks keep indicating improper t'=t in improper
seconds.
No surprise, of course, that you have no clue what a "hard proof" mean.
I wonder if you noticed, given how strong your grip on reality is, that
you are arguing with the resident "'nymshifting troll".
I'm not arguing him, it's as pointless as arguing the idiots from your
bunch of idiots. I Just kick his ass.
On 8/30/2025 11:56 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
This definition:
"The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time.
It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of
the caesium frequency +o++Cs, the unperturbed ground-state
hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium-133 atom,
to be 9 192 631 770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which
is equal to 1/s.
"
. . is obviously like defining sharks to be grass eaters.
Yes, it is, poor trash. Sorry, poor trash.
This SI definition is obviously made to enforce the absurd
General Theory of Relativity on the rest of the world.
Yes, it was, poor trash. Sorry, poor trash.
Fortunately - nobody serious cares about the
nonsense, anyone can check GPS, the real
second is 9 192 631 770 on Earth and
9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.
But GR is too stupid to succeed anyway, it will
never be accepted by the rest of the world!
Right?
Right. Even more - even the hardest relativistic
fanatics like yourself are not stupid enough
to accept some of its most wild assertions.
That's why you insist bending light - after
your idiot guru DEFINED a straight line
as a path of light [in vacuum]. Yes, poor
trash, he did.
Den 30.08.2025 12:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/30/2025 11:56 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
This definition:
-a"The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time.
-a It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of
-a the caesium frequency +o++Cs, the unperturbed ground-state
-a hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium-133 atom,
-a to be 9 192 631 770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which
-a is equal to 1/s.
-a"
. . is obviously like defining sharks to be grass eaters.
Yes, it is, poor trash. Sorry, poor trash.
This SI definition is obviously made to enforce the absurd
General Theory of Relativity on the rest of the world.
Yes, it was, poor trash. Sorry, poor trash.
Fortunately - nobody serious cares about the
nonsense, anyone can check GPS, the real
second is 9 192 631 770 on Earth and
9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.
But GR is too stupid to succeed anyway, it will
never be accepted by the rest of the world!
Right?
Right. Even more - even the hardest relativistic
fanatics like yourself are not stupid enough
to accept some of its most wild assertions.
That's why you insist bending light - after
your idiot guru DEFINED a straight line
as a path of light [in vacuum]. Yes, poor
trash, he did.
'nuff said! :-D
On 8/30/2025 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Show me then your hard proof of
"We work with hard proofs in relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
And in the meantime in the real world -
forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper
clocks keep indicating improper t'=t in
improper seconds.
No surprise, of course, that you have no
clue what a "hard proof" mean.
https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_I.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_II.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Snider.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1964.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Pollock.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Liu.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/GravityProbeB.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Remmen_McCreary.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Botermann.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves_2.pdf
Den 30.08.2025 15:02, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/30/2025 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Show me then your hard proof of
"We work with hard proofs in relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
And in the meantime in the real world -
forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper
clocks keep indicating improper t'=t in
improper seconds.
No surprise, of course, that you have no
clue what a "hard proof" mean.
So you don't accept the description of experiments
confirming SR/GR as "hard proof".
But what about the papers written by those who
performed those experiments?
https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves_2.pdf
C'est de la pub pour le site de Paul, |oa.
Ne venez pas me dire le contraire, je vous croirai pas.
So you don't accept the description of experiments confirming SR/GR as
"hard proof".
But what about the papers written by those who performed those
experiments?
The papers are moronic arm waving, typical for relativistic idiots.
And anyway, poor trash, i asked not for a hard proof for your GR
delusions . I asked for a hard proof of "We work with hard proofs in relativity."
Any of your precious experiments confirming that? Which one?
Richard Hachel wrote:
https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves_2.pdf
C'est de la pub pour le site de Paul, |oa.
Ne venez pas me dire le contraire, je vous croirai pas.
which proves you never read any of it. You can't disprove anything. Go
come back when you can disprove.
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
So you don't accept the description of experiments confirming SR/GR as
"hard proof".
But what about the papers written by those who performed those
experiments?
The papers are moronic arm waving, typical for relativistic idiots.
And anyway, poor trash, i asked not for a hard proof for your GR
delusions . I asked for a hard proof of "We work with hard proofs in
relativity."
Any of your precious experiments confirming that? Which one?
not only you are stupid like a door, you are also a liar. You never read
nor undrestand any of it, nor dispute nor debate. Idiot. Go come back when you can disprove relativity from the core.
Den 30.08.2025 12:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
Even more - even the hardest relativistic
fanatics like yourself are not stupid enough
to accept some of its most wild assertions.
That's why you insist bending light - after
your idiot guru DEFINED a straight line
as a path of light [in vacuum]. Yes, poor
trash, he did.
https://www.google.pl/books/edition/Science_and_Hypothesis/r_vzAgAAQBAJ? hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA1&printsec=frontcover
See, trash - Poincare has written his paper
just some years before your idiot guru has
demonstrated "confirmations" of non-euclidean
space.
Notice 2 things in the paper:
1) for "experimental" results of non-euclidean
space we have to assume/define light paths
as straight lines
[and that's how the idiot got his "confirmations"]
2)It's stupid and would serve us ill [and
that's why your bunch of idiots have abandoned
the concept immediately after using it
for your "confirmations"].
Den 31.08.2025 13:38, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
Den 30.08.2025 12:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
Even more - even the hardest relativistic
fanatics like yourself are not stupid enough
to accept some of its most wild assertions.
That's why you insist bending light - after
your idiot guru DEFINED a straight line
as a path of light [in vacuum]. Yes, poor
trash, he did.
It is not easy to see what this incoherent babble is supposed
to mean, but we all, possibly not including Maciej Wo+|niak,
know that GR predicts that light is deflected by gravitation.
See, trash - Poincare has written his paper
just some years before your idiot guru has
demonstrated "confirmations" of non-euclidean
space.
Notice 2 things in the paper:
1) for "experimental" results of non-euclidean
space we have to assume/define light paths
as straight lines
[and that's how the idiot got his "confirmations"]
2)It's stupid and would serve us ill [and
that's why your bunch of idiots have abandoned
the concept immediately after using it
for your "confirmations"].
What Poincar|- has speculated about non Euclidean space
is obviously utterly irrelevant to what GR predicts.
GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
observed from the Earth is:
GR's prediction of gravitational deflection of
EM-radiation is so thoroughly experimental confirmed
On 8/31/2025 2:14 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 30.08.2025 15:02, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/30/2025 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Show me then your hard proof of
"We work with hard proofs in relativity."
https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_I.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_II.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Snider.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1964.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Pollock.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Liu.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/GravityProbeB.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Remmen_McCreary.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Botermann.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves_2.pdf
Is this evidence hard enough for you?
A wise guy like you know of course that the only way
to falsify a consistent theory of physics is to
perform an experiment and show that the predictions
of the theory are inconsistent with measurements.
Can you name an experiment which falsifies GR? No? So GR is still not falsified.
The papers are-a moronic arm waving, typical
for relativistic idiots.
And anyway, poor trash, i asked not for
a hard proof for your GR delusions . I
asked for a hard proof of "We work with
hard proofs in relativity."
Any of your precious experiments confirming
that? Which one?
On 8/31/2025 7:49 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
observed from the Earth is:
++ = (2-+GM/(AU-+c-#))-+(1 + cos-a)/sin-a
Where:
AU = an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
-a = angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = Gravitational constant
M = solar mass
This prediction is thoroughly experimentally confirmed.
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
GR's prediction of gravitational deflection of
EM-radiation is so thoroughly experimental confirmed
that it can be considered a fact.
No, poor trash, it doesn't.
As said, your idiot guru has defined
"a straight line" as a path of light
in vacuum. No surprise you have no clue,
you're a really primitive idiot.
GR's prediction of gravitational deflection of
EM-radiation is so thoroughly experimental confirmed
that it can be considered a fact.
But still "a straight line" has been-a defined
by your idiot guru as a path of light in vacuum.
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/30/2025 1:04 PM, Micha Wojew||dka wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 8/30/2025 12:28 PM, Tharon Turlapov wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:No, idiot, 9 192 631 774 is 4 more than 9 192 631 770.
On 8/30/2025 11:56 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
This SI definition is obviously made to enforce the absurd General >>>>>>> Theory of Relativity on the rest of the world.
Yes, it was, poor trash. Sorry, poor trash. Fortunately - nobody
serious cares about the nonsense, anyone can check GPS, the real
second is 9 192 631 770 on Earth and 9 192 631 774 on a GPS
satellite.
idiot, if you really check and care about, those numbers are the same. >>>>
what DSP capable device are you using to make sure, idiot. Put up some
proofs, or shut up. We work with hard proofs in relativity.
Show me then your hard proof of
"We work with hard proofs in relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
I wonder if you noticed, given how strong your grip on reality is, that
you are arguing with the resident "'nymshifting troll".
Are you yelling at clouds in Poland also?
On 8/31/2025 7:49 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation observed
from the Earth is:
No, poor trash, it doesn't.
As said, your idiot guru has defined "a straight line" as a path of
light in vacuum. No surprise you have no clue, you're a really primitive idiot.
Den 31.08.2025 14:50, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/31/2025 2:14 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 30.08.2025 15:02, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/30/2025 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Show me then your hard proof of
"We work with hard proofs in relativity."
Quite.
Physicists work with hard, experimental evidence.
If a theory is falsified by one experiment,
the theory is dead.
SR and GR are thoroughly experimentally verified
by innumerable experiments and falsified by none.
The papers are-a moronic arm waving, typical
for relativistic idiots.
Don't pretend you have read any of them.
Show me then your hard proof of "We work with hard proofs in
relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
I wonder if you noticed, given how strong your grip on reality is, that
you are arguing with the resident "'nymshifting troll".
Are you yelling at clouds in Poland also?
For some reason, it reminds me of JG when he gets pissed off... His
insults have a certain "signature", so to speak...
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
Show me then your hard proof of "We work with hard proofs in
relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
I wonder if you noticed, given how strong your grip on reality is, that
you are arguing with the resident "'nymshifting troll".
Are you yelling at clouds in Poland also?
For some reason, it reminds me of JG when he gets pissed off... His
insults have a certain "signature", so to speak...
speaking the witch, i suspect you also might be terribly fucked up into
your ass, as signature, so to speak
Den 31.08.2025 20:06, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/31/2025 7:49 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
observed from the Earth is:
-a ++ = (2-+GM/(AU-+c-#))-+(1 + cos-a)/sin-a
Where:
AU = an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
-a-a = angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth
c-a = speed of light in vacuum
G-a = Gravitational constant
M-a = solar mass
This prediction is thoroughly experimentally confirmed.
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
GR's prediction of gravitational deflection of
EM-radiation is so thoroughly experimental confirmed
that it can be considered a fact.
You can't make experimental evidence go away
On 8/31/2025 9:03 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 31.08.2025 20:06, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/31/2025 7:49 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
observed from the Earth is:
-a ++ = (2-+GM/(AU-+c-#))-+(1 + cos-a)/sin-a
Where:
AU = an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
-a-a = angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth
c-a = speed of light in vacuum
G-a = Gravitational constant
M-a = solar mass
This prediction is thoroughly experimentally confirmed.
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
GR's prediction of gravitational deflection of
EM-radiation is so thoroughly experimental confirmed
that it can be considered a fact.
You can't make experimental evidence go away
Paul, poor trash, your idiot guru has predicted
deflection of space and spacetime, not deflection
of light. Do you understand the difference?
Of course, not. Poincare could explain it to you,
but you're too dumb for Poincare.
Anyway, even you and your fellow cultists are
not stupid enough to accept the insane schema
of your insane guru, and that's where "light
deflection" came from.