Den 15.09.2026 01:44, skrev HenryWilson:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 21:18:48 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Einstein's conclusion of his thought experiment is:
Clock A and clock B are synchronous in the stationary system, but
clock A and clock B are not synchronous in their rest frame.
Einstein's conclusion was obviously correct when based on his
postulate.
It was then used to formulate a complete theory BASED THE VALIDITY OF
POSTULATE.
This is rather remarkable!
This is an article you wrote in 2010: https://paulba.no/div/RalphRabbidge_ros.pdf Quote:
"Einstein's logical error lies in his statement that,
rCLObservers moving with moving rod would thus find that the two clocks
were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would
declare the clocks to be synchronousrCY.
That simply does not follow the facts.
"
So you have finally got it!
SR is a complete, consistent theory based on two postulates.
I have not proved Einstein wrong and that was never my intention..which
was to show that Newton was also RIGHT.
Quite.
Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean relativity is also a consistent
theory.
So we have two consistent theories which do not always predict the same.
So how can we find out which of the different predictions are in
accordance with real measurements?
On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 13:36:29 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 15.09.2026 01:44, skrev HenryWilson:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 21:18:48 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Einstein's conclusion of his thought experiment is:
Clock A and clock B are synchronous in the stationary system, but >>>> clock A and clock B are not synchronous in their rest frame.
Einstein's conclusion was obviously correct when based on his
postulate.
It was then used to formulate a complete theory BASED THE VALIDITY OF
POSTULATE.
This is rather remarkable!
This is an article you wrote in 2010:
https://paulba.no/div/RalphRabbidge_ros.pdf Quote:
"Einstein's logical error lies in his statement that,
rCLObservers moving with moving rod would thus find that the two clocks >> were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would
declare the clocks to be synchronousrCY.
That simply does not follow the facts.
"
So you have finally got it!
SR is a complete, consistent theory based on two postulates.
I always HAD it. I have now REFINED it.
I have not proved Einstein wrong and that was never my intention..which
was to show that Newton was also RIGHT.
Quite.
Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean relativity is also a consistent
theory.
Correct!
So we have two consistent theories which do not always predict the same.
They should always agree if and when SR's limitations are recognized and experimental results are correctly interpreted.
For instance, interferometry experiments can be analyses in two different ways. The method used by Einstein supporters is wrongly claimed to
uniquely support SR and refute Newton. BaTh provides correct explanations
for the many experiments that are claimed to refute it.
So how can we find out which of the different predictions are in
accordance with real measurements?
You will have to buy my book to find out. It is in its final stages.
Den 16.09.2026 01:20, skrev HenryWilson:
Ralph, even you know that when two theories have two different
predictions for what will be measured in an experiment, then
the only way to determine which of the theories' prediction
is in accordance with measurement is to perform the measurement.
On 9/16/2026 8:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 01:20, skrev HenryWilson:
Ralph, even you know that when two theories have two different
predictions for what will be measured in an experiment, then
the only way to determine which of the theories' prediction
is in accordance with measurement is to perform the measurement.
Only such an idiot can believe such
nonsensical lies, but - anyway -
even you can't lie non-stop, so
sometimes you admit that the real
measurement results have little in
common with those mad delusions
of your mad guru.
the real measurement results have little in common
with those mad delusions
Le 16/09/2026 |a 20:53, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/16/2026 8:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 01:20, skrev HenryWilson:
Ralph, even you know that when two theories have two different
predictions for what will be measured in an experiment, then
the only way to determine which of the theories' prediction
is in accordance with measurement is to perform the measurement.
Only such an idiot can believe such
nonsensical lies, but - anyway -
even you can't lie non-stop, so
sometimes you admit that the real
measurement results have little in
common with those mad delusions
of your mad guru.
the real measurement results have little in common
with those mad delusions
Excellent.
Then give ONE example:
-aexperiment:
-arelativity predicts:
A solar day measured by the local clock
on a GPS satellite should be - 24h+38 us.
It is - 24 h
A solar day measured by the local clock
on a GPS satellite should be - 24h+38 us.
It is - 24 h
No, Maciej.
You have switched clocks again.
Relativity predicts that an UNCOMPENSATED atomic clock in nominal
On 9/16/2026 8:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 01:20, skrev HenryWilson:
Ralph, even you know that when two theories have two different
predictions for what will be measured in an experiment, then
the only way to determine which of the theories' prediction
is in accordance with measurement is to perform the measurement.
Only such an idiot can believe such
nonsensical lies, but - anyway -
even you can't lie non-stop, so
sometimes you admit that the real
measurement results have little in
common with those mad delusions
of your mad guru.
Den 16.09.2026 20:53, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/16/2026 8:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 01:20, skrev HenryWilson:
Ralph, even you know that when two theories have two different
predictions for what will be measured in an experiment, then
the only way to determine which of the theories' prediction
is in accordance with measurement is to perform the measurement.
Only morons can fail to understand that the above is correct.
Only such an idiot can believe such
nonsensical lies, but - anyway -
even you can't lie non-stop, so
sometimes you admit that the real
measurement results have little in
common with those mad delusions
of your mad guru.
You are no moron, so you wrote the above without thinking,
didn't you?
You know better, so if you allow yourself to think,
you can answer the questions below, can't you?
Or can't you?
Fact:
The General Theory of Relativity predicts that
the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = 2.11e-6
Fact:
Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity predicts
that the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = 0\
Den 16.09.2026 20:53, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 9/16/2026 8:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 01:20, skrev HenryWilson:
Ralph, even you know that when two theories have two different
predictions for what will be measured in an experiment, then
the only way to determine which of the theories' prediction
is in accordance with measurement is to perform the measurement.
Only morons can fail to understand that the above is correct.
Only such an idiot can believe such
nonsensical lies, but - anyway -
even you can't lie non-stop, so
sometimes you admit that the real
measurement results have little in
common with those mad delusions
of your mad guru.
You are no moron, so you wrote the above without thinking,
didn't you?
You know better, so if you allow yourself to think,
you can answer the questions below, can't you?
Or can't you?
Fact:
The General Theory of Relativity predicts that
the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
??/? = 2.11e-6
Fact:
Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity predicts
that the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
??/? = 0
Fact:
The HARPS-LFC spectrometer has measured that the redshift
of the light from the Sun is:
??/? = (2.13#2)e-6
https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.10558
Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 20:53, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 9/16/2026 8:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 01:20, skrev HenryWilson:
Ralph, even you know that when two theories have two different
predictions for what will be measured in an experiment, then
the only way to determine which of the theories' prediction
is in accordance with measurement is to perform the measurement.
Only morons can fail to understand that the above is correct.
Only such an idiot can believe such
nonsensical lies, but - anyway -
even you can't lie non-stop, so
sometimes you admit that the real
measurement results have little in
common with those mad delusions
of your mad guru.
You are no moron, so you wrote the above without thinking,
didn't you?
You know better, so if you allow yourself to think,
you can answer the questions below, can't you?
Or can't you?
Fact:
The General Theory of Relativity predicts that
the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
??/? = 2.11e-6
Fact:
Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity predicts
that the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
??/? = 0
Fact:
The HARPS-LFC spectrometer has measured that the redshift
of the light from the Sun is:
??/? = (2.13#2)e-6
https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.10558
This is another nice example of the nutters
being way behind the times.
Using absolute frequency measurement for calibration,
spectroscopy has become far more accurate, in absolute terms.
And dear Henry, nowadays a spectrometer really measures a frequency,
not a wavelength.
If you want to express it as a wavelength you need to use the defined
value for the speed of light.
Idem if you want to express the red shift in m/s,
Jan
On 09/17/2026 05:07 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 20:53, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 9/16/2026 8:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 01:20, skrev HenryWilson:
Ralph, even you know that when two theories have two different
predictions for what will be measured in an experiment, then
the only way to determine which of the theories' prediction
is in accordance with measurement is to perform the measurement.
Only morons can fail to understand that the above is correct.
Only such an idiot can believe such
nonsensical lies, but - anyway -
even you can't lie non-stop, so
sometimes you admit that the real
measurement results have little in
common with those mad delusions
of your mad guru.
You are no moron, so you wrote the above without thinking,
didn't you?
You know better, so if you allow yourself to think,
you can answer the questions below, can't you?
Or can't you?
Fact:
The General Theory of Relativity predicts that
the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
??/? = 2.11e-6
Fact:
Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity predicts
that the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
??/? = 0
Fact:
The HARPS-LFC spectrometer has measured that the redshift
of the light from the Sun is:
??/? = (2.13#2)e-6
https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.10558
This is another nice example of the nutters
being way behind the times.
Using absolute frequency measurement for calibration,
spectroscopy has become far more accurate, in absolute terms.
And dear Henry, nowadays a spectrometer really measures a frequency,
not a wavelength.
If you want to express it as a wavelength you need to use the defined
value for the speed of light.
Idem if you want to express the red shift in m/s,
Jan
"Resonance" is "non-local".
After "particle/wave duality", which everybody knows about,
there's another "wave/resonance dichotomy", which most don't.
"Relative" and "Absolute" are "Relative" and "Absolute".
On 09/17/2026 05:07 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 20:53, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 9/16/2026 8:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 01:20, skrev HenryWilson:
Ralph, even you know that when two theories have two different
predictions for what will be measured in an experiment, then
the only way to determine which of the theories' prediction
is in accordance with measurement is to perform the measurement.
Only morons can fail to understand that the above is correct.
Only such an idiot can believe such
nonsensical lies, but - anyway -
even you can't lie non-stop, so
sometimes you admit that the real
measurement results have little in
common with those mad delusions
of your mad guru.
You are no moron, so you wrote the above without thinking,
didn't you?
You know better, so if you allow yourself to think,
you can answer the questions below, can't you?
Or can't you?
Fact:
The General Theory of Relativity predicts that
the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
??/? = 2.11e-6
Fact:
Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity predicts
that the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
??/? = 0
Fact:
The HARPS-LFC spectrometer has measured that the redshift
of the light from the Sun is:
??/? = (2.13#2)e-6
https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.10558
This is another nice example of the nutters
being way behind the times.
Using absolute frequency measurement for calibration,
spectroscopy has become far more accurate, in absolute terms.
And dear Henry, nowadays a spectrometer really measures a frequency,
not a wavelength.
If you want to express it as a wavelength you need to use the defined
value for the speed of light.
Idem if you want to express the red shift in m/s,
Jan
"Resonance" is "non-local".
After "particle/wave duality", which everybody knows about,
there's another "wave/resonance dichotomy", which most don't.
"Relative" and "Absolute" are "Relative" and "Absolute".
On 09/17/2026 05:07 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 20:53, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 9/16/2026 8:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 01:20, skrev HenryWilson:
Ralph, even you know that when two theories have two different
predictions for what will be measured in an experiment, then
the only way to determine which of the theories' prediction
is in accordance with measurement is to perform the measurement.
Only morons can fail to understand that the above is correct.
Only such an idiot can believe such
nonsensical lies, but - anyway -
even you can't lie non-stop, so
sometimes you admit that the real
measurement results have little in
common with those mad delusions
of your mad guru.
You are no moron, so you wrote the above without thinking,
didn't you?
You know better, so if you allow yourself to think,
you can answer the questions below, can't you?
Or can't you?
Fact:
The General Theory of Relativity predicts that
the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
??/? = 2.11e-6
Fact:
Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity predicts
that the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
??/? = 0
Fact:
The HARPS-LFC spectrometer has measured that the redshift
of the light from the Sun is:
??/? = (2.13#2)e-6
https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.10558
This is another nice example of the nutters
being way behind the times.
Using absolute frequency measurement for calibration,
spectroscopy has become far more accurate, in absolute terms.
And dear Henry, nowadays a spectrometer really measures a frequency,
not a wavelength.
If you want to express it as a wavelength you need to use the defined
value for the speed of light.
Idem if you want to express the red shift in m/s,
Jan
"Resonance" is "non-local".
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 09/17/2026 05:07 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 20:53, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 9/16/2026 8:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 01:20, skrev HenryWilson:
Ralph, even you know that when two theories have two different
predictions for what will be measured in an experiment, then
the only way to determine which of the theories' prediction
is in accordance with measurement is to perform the measurement.
Only morons can fail to understand that the above is correct.
Only such an idiot can believe such
nonsensical lies, but - anyway -
even you can't lie non-stop, so
sometimes you admit that the real
measurement results have little in
common with those mad delusions
of your mad guru.
You are no moron, so you wrote the above without thinking,
didn't you?
You know better, so if you allow yourself to think,
you can answer the questions below, can't you?
Or can't you?
Fact:
The General Theory of Relativity predicts that
the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
??/? = 2.11e-6
Fact:
Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity predicts
that the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
??/? = 0
Fact:
The HARPS-LFC spectrometer has measured that the redshift
of the light from the Sun is:
??/? = (2.13#2)e-6
https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.10558
This is another nice example of the nutters
being way behind the times.
Using absolute frequency measurement for calibration,
spectroscopy has become far more accurate, in absolute terms.
And dear Henry, nowadays a spectrometer really measures a frequency,
not a wavelength.
If you want to express it as a wavelength you need to use the defined
value for the speed of light.
Idem if you want to express the red shift in m/s,
Jan
"Resonance" is "non-local".
'Local' is an idealisation,
Jan
On 9/17/2026 11:18 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 20:53, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/16/2026 8:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 01:20, skrev HenryWilson:
Ralph, even you know that when two theories have two different
predictions for what will be measured in an experiment, then
the only way to determine which of the theories' prediction
is in accordance with measurement is to perform the measurement.
Only morons can fail to understand that the above is correct.
Only such an idiot can believe such
nonsensical lies, but - anyway -
even you can't lie non-stop, so
sometimes you admit that the real
measurement results have little in
common with those mad delusions
of your mad guru.
You are no moron, so you wrote the above without thinking,
didn't you?
You know better, so if you allow yourself to think,
you can answer the questions below, can't you?
Or can't you?
Fact:
The General Theory of Relativity predicts that
the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = 2.11e-6
Probably. You and your fellow fanatics
usually lie, but i have no reason to say
it's the case.
Fact:
Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity predicts
that the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = 0
And that's an obvious, impudent lie.
Newtonian mechanics neither predicts
anything about light, nor anything
about gravitational field.
Fact:
The HARPS-LFC spectrometer has measured that the redshift
of the light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = (2.13-#2)e-6
A combination of Newtonian optics
and Newtonian gravity theory could
give the result, indeed. Newtonian optics
has been-a abandoned for 300 years - but
a piece of lying, fanatic shit doesn't
care. Its mad religion has trained
it to bark "NEWTON WRONG!!!" so
it does.
Newtonian mechanics neither predicts anything about light,
nor anything about gravitational field.
Newtonian optics has been abandoned for 300 years
Den 17.09.2026 11:48, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/17/2026 11:18 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 20:53, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/16/2026 8:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 01:20, skrev HenryWilson:
Ralph, even you know that when two theories have two different
predictions for what will be measured in an experiment, then
the only way to determine which of the theories' prediction
is in accordance with measurement is to perform the measurement.
Only morons can fail to understand that the above is correct.
Only such an idiot can believe such
nonsensical lies, but - anyway -
even you can't lie non-stop, so
sometimes you admit that the real
measurement results have little in
common with those mad delusions
of your mad guru.
You are no moron, so you wrote the above without thinking,
didn't you?
You know better, so if you allow yourself to think,
you can answer the questions below, can't you?
Or can't you?
Fact:
The General Theory of Relativity predicts that
the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = 2.11e-6
Probably. You and your fellow fanatics
usually lie, but i have no reason to say
it's the case.
Fact:
Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity predicts
that the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = 0
And that's an obvious, impudent lie.
Newtonian mechanics neither predicts
anything about light, nor anything
about gravitational field.
If you claim that it is an obvious lie that Newton
predicts that the gravitational redshift of light from
the Sun is +o++/++ = 0, then you claim that Newton obviously
predicts that the gravitational redshift of light from
the Sun is +o++/++ =/= 0 .
Fact:
The HARPS-LFC spectrometer has measured that the redshift
of the light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = (2.13-#2)e-6
A combination of Newtonian optics
and Newtonian gravity theory could
give the result, indeed. Newtonian optics
has been abandoned for 300 years - but
a piece of lying, fanatic shit doesn't
care. Its mad religion has trained
it to bark "NEWTON WRONG!!!" so
it does.
So you claim that Newton is right and his prediction is
in accordance with the measurement +o++/++ = (2.13-#2)e-6 ?
Can you show how you arrived at that prediction?
Use mathematics!
You are free to call me "a piece of lying, fanatic shit",
if you think that will help. :-D
Here are a few equations to start with:
F = dp/dt
F = GMm/r-#
x' = x - vt
y' = y
z' = z
t' = t
Newtonian optics will not help you to show that Newton
predicts the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun
to be +o++/++ = (2.13-#2)e-6.
On 09/17/2026 12:12 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 17.09.2026 11:48, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/17/2026 11:18 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 20:53, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/16/2026 8:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 01:20, skrev HenryWilson:
Ralph, even you know that when two theories have two different
predictions for what will be measured in an experiment, then
the only way to determine which of the theories' prediction
is in accordance with measurement is to perform the measurement.
Only morons can fail to understand that the above is correct.
Only such an idiot can believe such
nonsensical lies, but - anyway -
even you can't lie non-stop, so
sometimes you admit that the real
measurement results have little in
common with those mad delusions
of your mad guru.
You are no moron, so you wrote the above without thinking,
didn't you?
You know better, so if you allow yourself to think,
you can answer the questions below, can't you?
Or can't you?
Fact:
The General Theory of Relativity predicts that
the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = 2.11e-6
Probably. You and your fellow fanatics
usually lie, but i have no reason to say
it's the case.
Fact:
Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity predicts
that the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = 0
And that's an obvious, impudent lie.
Newtonian mechanics neither predicts
anything about light, nor anything
about gravitational field.
If you claim that it is an obvious lie that Newton
predicts that the gravitational redshift of light from
the Sun is +o++/++ = 0, then you claim that Newton obviously
predicts that the gravitational redshift of light from
the Sun is +o++/++ =/= 0 .
Fact:
The HARPS-LFC spectrometer has measured that the redshift
of the light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = (2.13-#2)e-6
A combination of Newtonian optics
and Newtonian gravity theory could
give the result, indeed. Newtonian optics
has been abandoned for 300 years - but
a piece of lying, fanatic shit doesn't
care. Its mad religion has trained
it to bark "NEWTON WRONG!!!" so
it does.
So you claim that Newton is right and his prediction is
in accordance with the measurement +o++/++ = (2.13-#2)e-6 ?
Can you show how you arrived at that prediction?
Use mathematics!
You are free to call me "a piece of lying, fanatic shit",
if you think that will help. :-D
Here are a few equations to start with:
F = dp/dt
F = GMm/r-#
x' = x - vt
y' = y
z' = z
t' = t
Newtonian optics will not help you to show that Newton
predicts the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun
to be +o++/++ = (2.13-#2)e-6.
The deflection of light about the Sun was about _half_
or _twice_ what Einstein gave as predicted, illustrating
the aspects of _continuum mechanics_ of the _pure diffraction_
of light about halving and doubling measures and spaces.
Or, Einstein after Eddington was about "half less wrong".
The deflection of light about the Sun was about _half_
or _twice_ what Einstein gave as predicted
Einstein after Eddington was about "half less wrong".
pure diffraction
halving and doubling measures and spaces
Den 16.09.2026 20:53, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/16/2026 8:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 01:20, skrev HenryWilson:
Ralph, even you know that when two theories have two different
predictions for what will be measured in an experiment, then the only
way to determine which of the theories' prediction is in accordance
with measurement is to perform the measurement.
Only morons can fail to understand that the above is correct.
Only such an idiot can believe such nonsensical lies, but - anyway -
even you can't lie non-stop, so sometimes you admit that the real
measurement results have little in common with those mad delusions of
your mad guru.
You are no moron, so you wrote the above without thinking, didn't you?
You know better, so if you allow yourself to think,
you can answer the questions below, can't you?
Or can't you?
Fact:
The General Theory of Relativity predicts that the gravitational
redshift of light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = 2.11e-6
Fact:
Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity predicts that the
gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is: +o++/++ = 0
Fact:
The HARPS-LFC spectrometer has measured that the redshift of the light
from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = (2.13-#2)e-6
https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.10558
Questions:
Is any of the predictions in accordance with the measurement?
Which one?
Den 17.09.2026 11:48, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/17/2026 11:18 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 20:53, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/16/2026 8:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 01:20, skrev HenryWilson:
Ralph, even you know that when two theories have two different
predictions for what will be measured in an experiment, then
the only way to determine which of the theories' prediction
is in accordance with measurement is to perform the measurement.
Only morons can fail to understand that the above is correct.
Only such an idiot can believe such
nonsensical lies, but - anyway -
even you can't lie non-stop, so
sometimes you admit that the real
measurement results have little in
common with those mad delusions
of your mad guru.
You are no moron, so you wrote the above without thinking,
didn't you?
You know better, so if you allow yourself to think,
you can answer the questions below, can't you?
Or can't you?
Fact:
The General Theory of Relativity predicts that
the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = 2.11e-6
Probably. You and your fellow fanatics
usually lie, but i have no reason to say
it's the case.
Fact:
Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity predicts
that the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = 0
And that's an obvious, impudent lie.
Newtonian mechanics neither predicts
anything about light, nor anything
about gravitational field.
If you claim that it is an obvious lie that Newton
predicts that the gravitational redshift of light from
the Sun is +o++/++ = 0, then you claim that Newton obviously
predicts that the gravitational redshift of light from
the Sun is +o++/++ =/= 0 .
A combination of Newtonian optics
and Newtonian gravity theory could
give the result, indeed. Newtonian optics
has been-a abandoned for 300 years - but
a piece of lying, fanatic shit doesn't
care. Its mad religion has trained
it to bark "NEWTON WRONG!!!" so
it does.
So you claim that Newton is right and his prediction is
in accordance with the measurement +o++/++ = (2.13-#2)e-6 ?
Maciej,
there is one small valid point buried under all that foam.
Strictly speaking,
-a"Newtonian mechanics predicts zero gravitational redshift"
is too abbreviated.
Newtonian mechanics alone contains no theory of light frequency,
so Paul should specify the classical theory of light/clocks being
combined with Newtonian gravity.
Fine.
But then you write:
Newtonian mechanics neither predicts anything about light,
nor anything about gravitational field.
The first part is fair.
The second is rather surprising.
Newtonian gravitation
So apparently Newtonian gravitational theory has somehow managed
to have a gravitational field without Maciej noticing it.
Den 17.09.2026 11:48, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
You are no moron, so you wrote the above without thinking, didn't you?
You know better, so if you allow yourself to think,
Can you show how you arrived at that prediction?
Use mathematics!
You are free to call me "a piece of lying, fanatic shit", if you think
that will help. :-D
Here are a few equations to start with:
F = dp/dt F = GMm/r-# x' = x - vt y' = y z' = z t' = t
Newtonian optics will not help you to show that Newton predicts the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun to be +o++/++ = (2.13-#2)e-6.
Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
Fact:
The HARPS-LFC spectrometer has measured that the redshift of the light
from the Sun is:
??/? = (2.13-#2)e-6
https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.10558
This is another nice example of the nutters being way behind the times.
Using absolute frequency measurement for calibration,
spectroscopy has become far more accurate, in absolute terms.
And dear Henry, nowadays a spectrometer really measures a frequency, not
a wavelength.
If you want to express it as a wavelength you need to use the defined
value for the speed of light.
Idem if you want to express the red shift in m/s,
Jan
Le 17/09/2026 |a 22:01, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
On 09/17/2026 12:12 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 17.09.2026 11:48, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/17/2026 11:18 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 20:53, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/16/2026 8:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2026 01:20, skrev HenryWilson:
Ralph, even you know that when two theories have two different
predictions for what will be measured in an experiment, then
the only way to determine which of the theories' prediction
is in accordance with measurement is to perform the measurement.
Only morons can fail to understand that the above is correct.
Only such an idiot can believe such
nonsensical lies, but - anyway -
even you can't lie non-stop, so
sometimes you admit that the real
measurement results have little in
common with those mad delusions
of your mad guru.
You are no moron, so you wrote the above without thinking,
didn't you?
You know better, so if you allow yourself to think,
you can answer the questions below, can't you?
Or can't you?
Fact:
The General Theory of Relativity predicts that
the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = 2.11e-6
Probably. You and your fellow fanatics
usually lie, but i have no reason to say
it's the case.
Fact:
Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity predicts
that the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = 0
And that's an obvious, impudent lie.
Newtonian mechanics neither predicts
anything about light, nor anything
about gravitational field.
If you claim that it is an obvious lie that Newton
predicts that the gravitational redshift of light from
the Sun is +o++/++ = 0, then you claim that Newton obviously
predicts that the gravitational redshift of light from
the Sun is +o++/++ =/= 0 .
Fact:
The HARPS-LFC spectrometer has measured that the redshift
of the light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = (2.13-#2)e-6
A combination of Newtonian optics
and Newtonian gravity theory could
give the result, indeed. Newtonian optics
has been abandoned for 300 years - but
a piece of lying, fanatic shit doesn't
care. Its mad religion has trained
it to bark "NEWTON WRONG!!!" so
it does.
So you claim that Newton is right and his prediction is
in accordance with the measurement +o++/++ = (2.13-#2)e-6 ?
Can you show how you arrived at that prediction?
Use mathematics!
You are free to call me "a piece of lying, fanatic shit",
if you think that will help. :-D
Here are a few equations to start with:
F = dp/dt
F = GMm/r-#
x' = x - vt
y' = y
z' = z
t' = t
Newtonian optics will not help you to show that Newton
predicts the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun
to be +o++/++ = (2.13-#2)e-6.
The deflection of light about the Sun was about _half_
or _twice_ what Einstein gave as predicted, illustrating
the aspects of _continuum mechanics_ of the _pure diffraction_
of light about halving and doubling measures and spaces.
Or, Einstein after Eddington was about "half less wrong".
Ross,
The deflection of light about the Sun was about _half_
or _twice_ what Einstein gave as predicted
No.
There are two historically relevant predictions:
Newton/Soldner-type calculation: ~0.87 arcsec
General Relativity (1915): ~1.75 arcsec
Einstein's earlier 1911 calculation also gave approximately the
half-value, because his theory of gravity was not yet complete.
The important word is "earlier".
Einstein after Eddington was about "half less wrong".
No again.
Einstein predicted ~1.75 arcsec in 1915.
Eddington's eclipse expedition was in 1919.
Even continuum mechanics has not yet discovered how to make
1919 happen before 1915.
pure diffraction
halving and doubling measures and spaces
Now derive the solar deflection from that.
Mass M, impact parameter b.
GR predicts, to leading order,
alpha = 4GM/(bc^2),
which gives about 1.75 arcsec for a ray grazing the Sun.
Please give the corresponding "pure diffraction" equation and
calculate alpha.
Otherwise "halving and doubling measures and spaces" is not an
alternative theory.
It is continuum vocabulary.
Or maybe Python is too dumb to distinguish
between Newtonian mechanics and Newtonian gravity
theory
Or maybe Python is too dumb to distinguish
between Newtonian mechanics and Newtonian gravity
theory
Maciej, read the post you are answering.
I wrote:
-a"Newtonian mechanics ALONE contains no theory of light frequency"
and then, separately:
Quote from my book:
"A falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s while falling from 26560km to Earth.
On 9/17/2026 9:12 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 17.09.2026 11:48, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/17/2026 11:18 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Fact:
The General Theory of Relativity predicts that
the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = 2.11e-6
Probably. You and your fellow fanatics
usually lie, but i have no reason to say
it's the case.
Fact:
Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity predicts
that the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = 0
And that's an obvious, impudent lie.
Newtonian mechanics neither predicts
anything about light, nor anything
about gravitational field.
If you claim that it is an obvious lie that NewtonThat's not what you said previously, poor
predicts that the gravitational redshift of light from
the Sun is +o++/++ = 0, then you claim that Newton obviously
predicts that the gravitational redshift of light from
the Sun is +o++/++ =/= 0 .
piece of shit.
Fact:
The HARPS-LFC spectrometer has measured that the redshift
of the light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = (2.13-#2)e-6
"Logic" worthy of relativistic scum,
indeed.
and Newtonian gravity theory could
give the result, indeed. Newtonian optics
has been-a abandoned for 300 years - but
a piece of lying, fanatic shit doesn't
care. Its mad religion has trained
it to bark "NEWTON WRONG!!!" so
it does.
So you claim that Newton is right and his prediction is
in accordance with the measurement +o++/++ = (2.13-#2)e-6 ?
No. You can't read too, no surprise.
Can you show how you arrived at that prediction?
Use mathematics!
You are free to call me "a piece of lying, fanatic shit",
if you think that will help. Efye
Den 17.09.2026 22:33, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/17/2026 9:12 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 17.09.2026 11:48, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/17/2026 11:18 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Fact:
The General Theory of Relativity predicts that
the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = 2.11e-6
Probably. You and your fellow fanatics
usually lie, but i have no reason to say
it's the case.
Fact:
Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity predicts
that the gravitational redshift of light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = 0
And that's an obvious, impudent lie.
Newtonian mechanics neither predicts
anything about light, nor anything
about gravitational field.
If you claim that it is an obvious lie that NewtonThat's not what you said previously, poor
predicts that the gravitational redshift of light from
the Sun is +o++/++ = 0, then you claim that Newton obviously
predicts that the gravitational redshift of light from
the Sun is +o++/++ =/= 0 .
piece of shit.
No, it was YOU who said that it was a lie that Newton predicts
the gravitational red shift to be +o++/++ = 0.
So you must mean that Newton predicts the gravitational red
shift is +o++/++ =/= 0.
Fact:
The HARPS-LFC spectrometer has measured that the redshift
of the light from the Sun is:
+o++/++ = (2.13-#2)e-6
"Logic" worthy of relativistic scum,
indeed.
the Sun is +o++/++ = 0, then you claim that Newton obviously
predicts that the gravitational redshift of light from
the Sun is +o++/++ =/= 0 .
A combination of Newtonian optics
and Newtonian gravity theory could
give the result, indeed. Newtonian optics
has been-a abandoned for 300 years - but
a piece of lying, fanatic shit doesn't
care. Its mad religion has trained
it to bark "NEWTON WRONG!!!" so
it does.
So you claim that Newton is right and his prediction is
in accordance with the measurement +o++/++ = (2.13-#2)e-6 ?
No. You can't read too, no surprise.
So you don't claim that Newton was right?
Le 17/09/2026 |a 22:01, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
On 09/17/2026 12:12 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Einstein's earlier 1911 calculation also gave approximately the
half-value, because his theory of gravity was not yet complete.
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> posted:
[ ... ]
Quote from my book:
"A falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s while falling from
26560km to Earth.
When will your book come out? What is it to be called? Who is the
author?
Henry Wilson or Ralph someone or other? Who is the publisher? Or is it
to be self-published because no serious publisher will touch it? How
much will it cost?
Not that I'm planning to buy it, or even to read it if a free copy is available,
but it would be nice to know.
Den 17.09.2026 22:33, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
You chose a couple of variants:
"poor piece of shit" and "relativistic scum".
That's OK, but did they help? :-D
Enough now.
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:51:25 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> posted:
[ ... ]
Quote from my book:
"A falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s while falling from
26560km to Earth.
When will your book come out? What is it to be called? Who is the
author?
Henry Wilson or Ralph someone or other? Who is the publisher? Or is it
to be self-published because no serious publisher will touch it? How
much will it cost?
Not that I'm planning to buy it, or even to read it if a free copy is
available,
but it would be nice to know.
I'm just tidying it up. It wont be expensive even though it is undoubtedly the hardest book ever written. I will publish the introduction if you
like.
Paul, can you tell us exactly what is red shifting. Einstein said
'frequency' is red shifted on leaving a star to account for light's loss
of energy. How is it that you are now claiming that WAVELENGTH is observed
to be redshifted. I think you are terribly confused.
Den 18.09.2026 22:30, skrev HenryWilson:
https://paulba.no/
On 09/18/2026 01:16 PM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:51:25 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> posted:
[ ... ]
Quote from my book:
"A falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s while falling from
26560km to Earth.
When will your book come out? What is it to be called? Who is the
author?
Henry Wilson or Ralph someone or other? Who is the publisher? Or is it
to be self-published because no serious publisher will touch it? How
much will it cost?
Not that I'm planning to buy it, or even to read it if a free copy is
available,
but it would be nice to know.
I'm just tidying it up. It wont be expensive even though it is
undoubtedly the hardest book ever written. I will publish the
introduction if you like.
Will it have acid-free paper and library bindings?
What mathematical subject classification might it have,
or Library of Congress catalog section?
You think MathSciNet and Zentralblatt will care much?
Den 18.09.2026 22:30, skrev HenryWilson:
Paul, can you tell us exactly what is red shifting. Einstein said
'frequency' is red shifted on leaving a star to account for light's
loss of energy. How is it that you are now claiming that WAVELENGTH is
observed to be redshifted. I think you are terribly confused.
The topic in this thread is Einstein's thought experiment about
relativity of simultaneity.
What I and GR are claiming about red shift of light from a star is
thoroughly explained in the thread:
"Let's Clear up the 'GR Redshift' Myth"
So why are asking your idiotic question yet again when I have answered
it several times in that thread?
But I can repeat it:
The experiment performed by the High Accuracy Radial Velocity Planet
Searcher (HARPS) in 2020 measured the gravitational red shift of light
from the Sun to be 638-#6 m/s.
+o++/++ = v/c = 2.13e-6 where v = 638 m/s
+o++/++ = 2.13e-6 means a longer wavelength, that's a red shift.
The equation f++ = c
where c is a constant, is always true by definition.
+of/f = - 2.13e-6 means lower frequency, that's a red shift.
Make my day, repeat what you wrote September 5., 2026:
"No Paul, HARPS measured a blue wavelength shift but you used their
equivalent velocity figures to make out it was a red shift."
or "Aha! I see your problem, +o++/++ is a positive shift.
That is a shift towards the BLUE end of the spectrum."
Le 19/09/2026 |a 14:48, "Paul B. Andersen" a |-crit :
Den 18.09.2026 22:30, skrev HenryWilson:
https://paulba.no/
Ca existe encore ces conneries l|a?
R.H.
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 15:33:24 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 09/18/2026 01:16 PM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:51:25 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> posted:
[ ... ]
Quote from my book:
"A falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s while falling from
26560km to Earth.
When will your book come out? What is it to be called? Who is the
author?
Henry Wilson or Ralph someone or other? Who is the publisher? Or is it >>>> to be self-published because no serious publisher will touch it? How
much will it cost?
Not that I'm planning to buy it, or even to read it if a free copy is
available,
but it would be nice to know.
I'm just tidying it up. It wont be expensive even though it is
undoubtedly the hardest book ever written. I will publish the
introduction if you like.
Will it have acid-free paper and library bindings?
No. PDF style
What mathematical subject classification might it have,
or Library of Congress catalog section?
You are out of date grandpa.
You think MathSciNet and Zentralblatt will care much?
My book is about Physics, not the big equations that has turned it into a circus. There is no difficult maths in my book, .
Paul, the 'frequency' of light doesn't exist. If you want to argue, just provide a definition of what it is.
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
Paul, the 'frequency' of light doesn't exist. If you want to argue, just
provide a definition of what it is.
You really need to take that fight to the next CGPM.
Since the last revision of the SI they insist
that only frequencies can be measured,
and that conversely every physical quantity is defined as a frequency.
(or a power of)
Nothing to do with relativity of course, just metrology.
On 09/19/2026 03:23 PM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 15:33:24 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 09/18/2026 01:16 PM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:51:25 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com wrote:Will it have acid-free paper and library bindings?
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> posted:
[ ... ]
Quote from my book:
"A falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s while falling from >>>>>> 26560km to Earth.
When will your book come out? What is it to be called? Who is the
author?
Henry Wilson or Ralph someone or other? Who is the publisher? Or is
it to be self-published because no serious publisher will touch it?
How much will it cost?
Not that I'm planning to buy it, or even to read it if a free copy
is available,
but it would be nice to know.
I'm just tidying it up. It wont be expensive even though it is
undoubtedly the hardest book ever written. I will publish the
introduction if you like.
No. PDF style
What mathematical subject classification might it have,
or Library of Congress catalog section?
You are out of date grandpa.
You think MathSciNet and Zentralblatt will care much?
My book is about Physics, not the big equations that has turned it into
a circus. There is no difficult maths in my book, .
PDF/A? Like what the Library of Congress Digital Preservation
recommends?
No-one serious will take seriously your book unless it's on acid-free
paper with library bindings.
The Math & Physics is in neighboring "Q" and "P" sections.
Many mathematical papers have multiple MSC's, ....
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
Paul, the 'frequency' of light doesn't exist. If you want to argue,
just provide a definition of what it is.
You really need to take that fight to the next CGPM.
Since the last revision of the SI they insist that only frequencies can
be measured,
and that conversely every physical quantity is defined as a frequency.
(or a power of)
Nothing to do with relativity of course, just metrology.
You have a problem though: it is an expert conference,
and they won't be impressed by you telling them that they don't
understand their stuff,
Jan
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 11:17:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
Paul, the 'frequency' of light doesn't exist. If you want to argue,
just provide a definition of what it is.
You really need to take that fight to the next CGPM.
Since the last revision of the SI they insist that only frequencies can
be measured,
and that conversely every physical quantity is defined as a frequency.
(or a power of)
Nothing to do with relativity of course, just metrology.
You have a problem though: it is an expert conference,
and they won't be impressed by you telling them that they don't
understand their stuff,
The whole of Modern Physics has gone right off the rails. I'm quite happy
to be the first to point that out.
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 17:43:22 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 09/19/2026 03:23 PM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 15:33:24 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 09/18/2026 01:16 PM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:51:25 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com wrote:Will it have acid-free paper and library bindings?
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> posted:
[ ... ]
Quote from my book:
"A falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s while falling from >>>>>>> 26560km to Earth.
When will your book come out? What is it to be called? Who is the
author?
Henry Wilson or Ralph someone or other? Who is the publisher? Or is >>>>>> it to be self-published because no serious publisher will touch it? >>>>>> How much will it cost?
Not that I'm planning to buy it, or even to read it if a free copy >>>>>> is available,
but it would be nice to know.
I'm just tidying it up. It wont be expensive even though it is
undoubtedly the hardest book ever written. I will publish the
introduction if you like.
No. PDF style
What mathematical subject classification might it have,
or Library of Congress catalog section?
You are out of date grandpa.
You think MathSciNet and Zentralblatt will care much?
My book is about Physics, not the big equations that has turned it into
a circus. There is no difficult maths in my book, .
PDF/A? Like what the Library of Congress Digital Preservation
recommends?
No-one serious will take seriously your book unless it's on acid-free
paper with library bindings.
The Math & Physics is in neighboring "Q" and "P" sections.
Many mathematical papers have multiple MSC's, ....
It is not a paper bok. It's an ebook. nobody important reads printed
books.
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 11:17:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
Paul, the 'frequency' of light doesn't exist. If you want to argue,
just provide a definition of what it is.
You really need to take that fight to the next CGPM.
Since the last revision of the SI they insist that only frequencies
can be measured,
and that conversely every physical quantity is defined as a
frequency. (or a power of)
Nothing to do with relativity of course, just metrology.
You have a problem though: it is an expert conference,
and they won't be impressed by you telling them that they don't
understand their stuff,
The whole of Modern Physics has gone right off the rails. I'm quite
happy to be the first to point that out.
Will it really surprise you to learn that 'the whole of modern physics'
won't listen?
You have nothing but words, and physics isn't about words.
To get anyone at all to pay attention to you you will need a verifiable prediction for an experimental outcome that improves upon what is
already known,
Jan
On 09/20/2026 03:24 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 17:43:22 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:Sure, whatever, Einstein.
On 09/19/2026 03:23 PM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 15:33:24 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:PDF/A? Like what the Library of Congress Digital Preservation
On 09/18/2026 01:16 PM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:51:25 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com wrote:Will it have acid-free paper and library bindings?
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> posted:
[ ... ]
Quote from my book:
"A falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s while falling
from 26560km to Earth.
When will your book come out? What is it to be called? Who is the >>>>>>> author?
Henry Wilson or Ralph someone or other? Who is the publisher? Or >>>>>>> is it to be self-published because no serious publisher will touch >>>>>>> it?
How much will it cost?
Not that I'm planning to buy it, or even to read it if a free copy >>>>>>> is available,
but it would be nice to know.
I'm just tidying it up. It wont be expensive even though it is
undoubtedly the hardest book ever written. I will publish the
introduction if you like.
No. PDF style
What mathematical subject classification might it have,
or Library of Congress catalog section?
You are out of date grandpa.
You think MathSciNet and Zentralblatt will care much?
My book is about Physics, not the big equations that has turned it
into a circus. There is no difficult maths in my book, .
recommends?
No-one serious will take seriously your book unless it's on acid-free
paper with library bindings.
The Math & Physics is in neighboring "Q" and "P" sections.
Many mathematical papers have multiple MSC's, ....
It is not a paper book. It's an ebook. nobody important reads printed
books.
Are you going to use TeX to write your book, perhaps MathML.
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:49:05 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The experiment performed by the High Accuracy Radial Velocity Planet
Searcher (HARPS) in 2020 measured the gravitational red shift of light
from the Sun to be 638-#6 m/s.
+o++/++ = v/c = 2.13e-6 where v = 638 m/s
+o++/++ = 2.13e-6 means a longer wavelength, that's a red shift.
The equation f++ = c
where c is a constant, is always true by definition.
+of/f = - 2.13e-6 means lower frequency, that's a red shift.
That experiment is a typically faked attempt to make Einstein look good.
It is riddled with wild assumptions and errors.
(In his modesty, he forgot to mention is doctorate.)
Den 20.09.2026 00:32, skrev HenryWilson:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:49:05 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The experiment performed by the High Accuracy Radial Velocity Planet
Searcher (HARPS) in 2020 measured the gravitational red shift of light
from the Sun to be 638-#6 m/s.
+o++/++ = v/c = 2.13e-6 where v = 638 m/s
+o++/++ = 2.13e-6 means a longer wavelength, that's a red shift.
-a-a The equation f++ = c
-a-a-a where c is a constant, is always true by definition.
+of/f = - 2.13e-6 means lower frequency, that's a red shift.
That experiment is a typically faked attempt to make Einstein look good.
It is riddled with wild assumptions and errors.
This statement says it all!
According Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson:
all experiments confirming SR/GR are faked, and all the physicists
involved in the experiments are frauds.
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 07:34:41 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 09/20/2026 03:24 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 17:43:22 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:Sure, whatever, Einstein.
On 09/19/2026 03:23 PM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 15:33:24 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:PDF/A? Like what the Library of Congress Digital Preservation
On 09/18/2026 01:16 PM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:51:25 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com wrote:Will it have acid-free paper and library bindings?
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> posted:
[ ... ]
Quote from my book:
"A falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s while falling >>>>>>>>> from 26560km to Earth.
When will your book come out? What is it to be called? Who is the >>>>>>>> author?
Henry Wilson or Ralph someone or other? Who is the publisher? Or >>>>>>>> is it to be self-published because no serious publisher will touch >>>>>>>> it?
How much will it cost?
Not that I'm planning to buy it, or even to read it if a free copy >>>>>>>> is available,
but it would be nice to know.
I'm just tidying it up. It wont be expensive even though it is
undoubtedly the hardest book ever written. I will publish the
introduction if you like.
No. PDF style
What mathematical subject classification might it have,
or Library of Congress catalog section?
You are out of date grandpa.
You think MathSciNet and Zentralblatt will care much?
My book is about Physics, not the big equations that has turned it
into a circus. There is no difficult maths in my book, .
recommends?
No-one serious will take seriously your book unless it's on acid-free
paper with library bindings.
The Math & Physics is in neighboring "Q" and "P" sections.
Many mathematical papers have multiple MSC's, ....
It is not a paper book. It's an ebook. nobody important reads printed
books.
Please don't insult me. I am not a scammer.
Are you going to use TeX to write your book, perhaps MathML.
The book is already written. I am just adding a few more graphics.
Ordinary word processor. It's an easy reader. Physics without the big
maths. Simple algebraic equations are ASCII. No problem.
All physicists ever are frauds.
All physicists ever are frauds.
Ah. ALL physicists EVER.
That clarifies things considerably.
So this is no longer merely:
-aEinstein was wrong,
-arelativity is wrong,
-arelativistic experiments are misinterpreted.
Apparently the fraud includes the whole profession.
Galileo: fraud.
Newton: fraud.
Faraday: fraud.
Maxwell: fraud.
Hertz: fraud.
Rutherford: fraud.
Bohr: fraud.
Fermi: fraud.
Every experimental physicist since: fraud.
Yes. Everyone pretending that what he says are
The Laws of Nature.
Yes. Everyone pretending that what he says are
The Laws of Nature.
Ah.
So "ALL physicists EVER are frauds" has already become:
-a"Everyone claiming infallible access to Nature is a fraud."
That's rather different, Maciej.
And, amusingly, physicists generally DON'T claim that.
A physical "law" is not Nature whispering divine truth into
Newton's or Einstein's ear.
It is a mathematical model saying:
-aIF the model is correct,
-aTHEN experiment should give X.
Experiment gives X
Nope, it doesn't.
Nope, it doesn't.
Good. Then NAME ONE.
One experiment.
One prediction.
One measured number.
You keep claiming:
-aprediction = X
-aexperiment = not X
-aphysicists scream and redefine the clocks.
Fine.
Give us:
-a1. the experiment,
-a2. the physical clocks,
-a3. the relativistic prediction,
-a4. the measured result,
-a5. the quotation where physicists say the clocks
-a-a-a aren't clocks because the result disagreed.
According to The Shit, between e1 and e2
a clock on a GPS satellite should elapse
24hr+38us.
But it doesn't. It's 24h with a good precision.
According to The Shit, between e1 and e2
a clock on a GPS satellite should elapse
24hr+38us.
But it doesn't. It's 24h with a good precision.
Maciej, you have finally provided your experiment.
And unfortunately it destroys your argument.
The +38 us/day prediction is for the RATE DIFFERENCE produced
by putting the clock in GPS orbit.
you don't even measure clock rates in seconds,
but in Hz.
you don't even measure clock rates in seconds,
but in Hz.
Maciej...
What do you think Hz means?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 1 Hz = 1 cycle / second.
Frequency IS a rate.
If a clock produces N cycles, its elapsed time is obtained by
COUNTING those cycles.
A fractional frequency offset
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a df/f
is therefore a fractional CLOCK RATE offset:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a d(tau)/dt - 1.
Integrate that rate difference over one day and you get a
TIME difference in seconds.
For GPS:
-afractional rate offset ~ 4.46e-10
and
-a86400 s * 4.46e-10 = 38.5 us.
This is so elementary that the official GPS specification itself
calls df/f = -4.4647e-10 a CLOCK RATE offset and also expresses
it as a frequency offset in Hz.
Same physical quantity, Maciej:
-aHz-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a -> instantaneous clock rate
-amicroseconds-a-a -> accumulated clock offset.
You have just accused me of lying because derivatives and
integrals have different units.
At this rate, your next expos|- of the Great Physics Fraud will be:
-a"Speed cannot be measured in kilometres,
-a you idiots measure it in km/h!"
A clock offset and a clock rate
are different quantities with different units.
And, according to The Shit, between e1 and e2
a clock on a GPS satellite should elapse/accumulate
24hr+38us.
But it doesn't. It's 24h with a good precision.
How does an idiot physicist know that it's
an improper clock?
A clock offset and a clock rate
are different quantities with different units.
Yes. That is exactly what I wrote.
Same physical quantity, Maciej:
Hz -> instantaneous clock rate
microseconds -> accumulated clock offset.
And, according to The Shit, between e1 and e2
a clock on a GPS satellite should elapse/accumulate
24hr+38us.
But it doesn't. It's 24h with a good precision.
Of course it is.
You have now discovered what the GPS clock frequency correction is for.
The approximately 38 us/day is the relativistic rate difference that
would accumulate between an uncorrected satellite clock and GPS
coordinate time.
Would. = doesn't.
Common sense has been warning the idiot.
Would. = doesn't.
Common sense has been warning the idiot.
Maciej, this is magnificent.
Yes:
-aWOULD -- if the clock were not compensated.
In relativistic physics you don't even
bother with the last step.
In relativistic physics you don't even
bother with the last step.
Excellent.
Five minutes ago your argument was:
-a"But it doesn't. It's 24h with a good precision."
That was supposed to be an EXPERIMENTAL RESULT.
No. It was supposed to be the reality.
No. It was supposed to be the reality.
Ah.
And how exactly did you establish this "reality":
-a"It's 24h with a good precision"
without a measurement?
You gave a numerical statement:
-a24 h, with good precision.
Either somebody MEASURED that, in which case give the
measurement and the experimental setup,
or nobody measured it, in which case your "reality" is precisely
the gedanken claim you accuse me of making.
There is no third option called:
-aREALITY, revealed directly to Maciej.
And notice what you are still desperately avoiding:
-auncompensated atomic clock in GPS orbit
They, very simply, don't exist.
You've only gedanken them.
They, very simply, don't exist.
You've only gedanken them.
Maciej...
Unfortunately for you, somebody performed exactly that
"gedanken" experiment.
NTS-2, June 1977.
Its cesium clock was operated for about TWENTY DAYS before
the relativistic frequency correction was switched on.
So, for about TWENTY DAYS of the initial mess
the mad prophecies of your idiot guru were
matching the reality of GPS.
So, for about TWENTY DAYS of the initial mess
the mad prophecies of your idiot guru were
matching the reality of GPS.
Thank you.
That will do nicely.
Three posts ago:
-a"They, very simply, don't exist.
-a You've only gedanken them."
Now:
-a"for about TWENTY DAYS ...
-a [the predictions] were matching the reality"
So in remarkably little time we have progressed from:
-aIT NEVER HAPPENED
A lie, as usual. Was "it's not happening".
A lie, as usual. Was "it's not happening".
Fine. Exact quotation:
-a"It's not happening for real"
and then:
-a"They, very simply, don't exist.
-a You've only gedanken them."
NTS-2 settles BOTH claims.
It DID happen for real.
Den 20.09.2026 00:32, skrev HenryWilson:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:49:05 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The experiment performed by the High Accuracy Radial Velocity Planet
Searcher (HARPS) in 2020 measured the gravitational red shift of light
from the Sun to be 638-#6 m/s.
+o++/++ = v/c = 2.13e-6 where v = 638 m/s
+o++/++ = 2.13e-6 means a longer wavelength, that's a red shift.
The equation f++ = c
where c is a constant, is always true by definition.
+of/f = - 2.13e-6 means lower frequency, that's a red shift.
That experiment is a typically faked attempt to make Einstein lookThis statement says it all!
good.
It is riddled with wild assumptions and errors.
According Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson:
all experiments confirming SR/GR are faked, and all the physicists
involved in the experiments are frauds.
A rather remarkable claim from a fully qualified physicist with these credentials:
On 27.05.2010, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
<<
I have a full degree in physics and maths, including QM, relativity,
thermodynamics, optics, nuclear, partial differential equations,
laplace transforms, etc. I also have a completely separate science
degree majoring in psych and genetics with a few other biological and
physics subjects included.
I spent eleven years at two of the best universities,
overall. I was an experimental officer, in physics research in
Australia's CSIRO and other institutions for over twenty years.
(In his modesty, he forgot to mention is doctorate.)
Yes. Everyone pretending that what he says are The Laws of Nature.
Ah.
So "ALL physicists EVER are frauds" has already become:
"Everyone claiming infallible access to Nature is a fraud."
That's rather different, Maciej.
And, amusingly, physicists generally DON'T claim that.
A physical "law" is not Nature whispering divine truth into Newton's or Einstein's ear.
It is a mathematical model saying:
IF the model is correct,
THEN experiment should give X.
Experiment gives X, within stated uncertainty:
the model survives another test.
Experiment gives not-X:
the model has a problem.
That's precisely why physics has error bars, competing models,
experimental replication and theories that get replaced.
So your magnificent indictment of
ALL PHYSICISTS EVER
has survived approximately one post before becoming:
"People claiming to be infallible are frauds."
Splendid.
Galileo, Newton and Faraday may leave the courtroom.
We appear to be prosecuting the Pope.
According to The Shit, between e1 and e2 a clock on a GPS satellite
should elapse 24hr+38us.
But it doesn't. It's 24h with a good precision.
Maciej, you have finally provided your experiment.
And unfortunately it destroys your argument.
The +38 us/day prediction is for the RATE DIFFERENCE produced by putting
the clock in GPS orbit.
But an operational GPS satellite clock is deliberately adjusted to
compensate for that rate difference.
This isn't something physicists invented afterwards because "The Wrong
Clock Ticketh".
It is literally in the GPS engineering specification.
The satellite frequency standard is offset by
df/f = -4.4647e-10
to compensate for relativistic effects.
For the traditional 10.23 MHz source this corresponds to about
10.22999999543 MHz
on board.
Then Nature applies the orbital relativistic effect.
Result:
deliberately slow clock
+ relativistic rate difference --------------------------------
approximately GPS coordinate rate.
And you observe:
24 h.
YES.
THAT IS WHAT THE SYSTEM WAS ENGINEERED TO DO.
Your argument is therefore:
1. Relativity predicts +38 us/day.
2. Engineers deliberately offset the oscillator to compensate
for the predicted relativistic rate difference.
3. The compensated clock stays close to GPS time.
4. Therefore relativity predicted +38 us/day and Nature
measured zero.
No.
You measured the compensation working.
Nobody needs to scream:
"THIS IS NOT A PROPER CLOCK!!!!"
It is a perfectly real atomic clock.
Its RATE HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY OFFSET.
And this is wonderfully testable.
Your explanation says the relativistic correction is unnecessary.
So take an otherwise equivalent uncompensated atomic frequency standard,
put it into the GPS orbit, and compare its accumulated time with the terrestrial reference.
Your prediction: apparently no +38 us/day.
Relativity: approximately +38 us/day.
THAT would be the experiment.
You spent several posts accusing the whole history of physics of fraud.
It turns out your first concrete example of the fraud was an engineering correction explicitly printed in the GPS specification.
Nature did vote, Maciej.
You accidentally counted the compensation as her ballot.
On 09/20/2026 09:03 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 07:34:41 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 09/20/2026 03:24 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 17:43:22 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:Sure, whatever, Einstein.
On 09/19/2026 03:23 PM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 15:33:24 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:PDF/A? Like what the Library of Congress Digital Preservation
On 09/18/2026 01:16 PM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:51:25 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com wrote:Will it have acid-free paper and library bindings?
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> posted:
[ ... ]
Quote from my book:
"A falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s while falling >>>>>>>>>> from 26560km to Earth.
When will your book come out? What is it to be called? Who is >>>>>>>>> the author?
Henry Wilson or Ralph someone or other? Who is the publisher? Or >>>>>>>>> is it to be self-published because no serious publisher will >>>>>>>>> touch it?
How much will it cost?
Not that I'm planning to buy it, or even to read it if a free >>>>>>>>> copy is available,
but it would be nice to know.
I'm just tidying it up. It wont be expensive even though it is >>>>>>>> undoubtedly the hardest book ever written. I will publish the
introduction if you like.
No. PDF style
What mathematical subject classification might it have,
or Library of Congress catalog section?
You are out of date grandpa.
You think MathSciNet and Zentralblatt will care much?
My book is about Physics, not the big equations that has turned it >>>>>> into a circus. There is no difficult maths in my book, .
recommends?
No-one serious will take seriously your book unless it's on
acid-free paper with library bindings.
The Math & Physics is in neighboring "Q" and "P" sections.
Many mathematical papers have multiple MSC's, ....
It is not a paper book. It's an ebook. nobody important reads
printed books.
Please don't insult me. I am not a scammer.
Are you going to use TeX to write your book, perhaps MathML.
The book is already written. I am just adding a few more graphics.
Ordinary word processor. It's an easy reader. Physics without the big
maths. Simple algebraic equations are ASCII. No problem.
Carl Sagan says the reason humanity is intelligent is "libraries".
Not "subscriptions".
That said, then of course you'll have an extensive bibliography and make citations of all the accounts of work in the field as from whatever references you may select, as hopefully represent an honest account of
the known authorities throughout the field, not just wrapping-old-as-new
a "parallel reconstruction" of events.
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:19:08 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 20.09.2026 00:32, skrev HenryWilson:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:49:05 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The experiment performed by the High Accuracy Radial Velocity Planet
Searcher (HARPS) in 2020 measured the gravitational red shift of light >>> from the Sun to be 638-#6 m/s.
??/? = v/c = 2.13e-6 where v = 638 m/s
??/? = 2.13e-6 means a longer wavelength, that's a red shift.
The equation f? = c
where c is a constant, is always true by definition.
?f/f = - 2.13e-6 means lower frequency, that's a red shift.
That experiment is a typically faked attempt to make Einstein lookThis statement says it all!
good.
It is riddled with wild assumptions and errors.
According Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson:
all experiments confirming SR/GR are faked, and all the physicists
involved in the experiments are frauds.
A rather remarkable claim from a fully qualified physicist with these credentials:
On 27.05.2010, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
<<
I have a full degree in physics and maths, including QM, relativity,
thermodynamics, optics, nuclear, partial differential equations,
laplace transforms, etc. I also have a completely separate science
degree majoring in psych and genetics with a few other biological and
physics subjects included.
I spent eleven years at two of the best universities,
overall. I was an experimental officer, in physics research in
Australia's CSIRO and other institutions for over twenty years.
You asked for it. I gave you the details. I know it was hard for you to discover that someone on this NG was actually a real physicist but that's
the facts man.
(In his modesty, he forgot to mention is doctorate.)
My book is worth a dozen PHds...but I wouldn't accept one.
...and yes...lots of experiments have been faked in order to support Einstein. For instance most evidence against Newton was derived from
wrongly interpreted interferometry. Paul's latest is HARPS. Q: Why do you think they they used moonlight? A: so they could use the Doppler shift
caused by its motion away from the sun to fake a redshift.
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:19:08 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 20.09.2026 00:32, skrev HenryWilson:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:49:05 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The experiment performed by the High Accuracy Radial Velocity
Planet Searcher (HARPS) in 2020 measured the gravitational red
shift of light from the Sun to be 638-#6 m/s.
??/? = v/c = 2.13e-6 where v = 638 m/s
??/? = 2.13e-6 means a longer wavelength, that's a red shift.
The equation f? = c
where c is a constant, is always true by definition.
?f/f = - 2.13e-6 means lower frequency, that's a red shift.
That experiment is a typically faked attempt to make Einstein lookThis statement says it all!
good.
It is riddled with wild assumptions and errors.
According Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson:
all experiments confirming SR/GR are faked, and all the physicists
involved in the experiments are frauds.
A rather remarkable claim from a fully qualified physicist with these
credentials:
On 27.05.2010, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
<<
I have a full degree in physics and maths, including QM,
relativity, thermodynamics, optics, nuclear, partial differential
equations, laplace transforms, etc. I also have a completely
separate science degree majoring in psych and genetics with a few
other biological and physics subjects included.
I spent eleven years at two of the best universities,
overall. I was an experimental officer, in physics research in
Australia's CSIRO and other institutions for over twenty years.
You asked for it. I gave you the details. I know it was hard for you to
discover that someone on this NG was actually a real physicist but
that's the facts man.
(In his modesty, he forgot to mention is doctorate.)
My book is worth a dozen PHds...but I wouldn't accept one.
While trying to bluff your way into physics you would do well to
remember that the correct spelling is PhD.
...and yes...lots of experiments have been faked in order to support
Einstein. For instance most evidence against Newton was derived from
wrongly interpreted interferometry. Paul's latest is HARPS. Q: Why do
you think they they used moonlight? A: so they could use the Doppler
shift caused by its motion away from the sun to fake a redshift.
As for faking, from the paper:
====
E"a"c"h" "s"p"e"c"t"r"u"m" "w"a"s" "c"o"r"r"e"c"t"e"d" "f"o"r"
r"a"d"i"a"l" "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "("s"e"e" "T"a"b"l"e" "1")" "u"s"i"n"g"
th"e" "J"P"L" "e"p"h"e"m"e"r"i"s" "t"o" "p"l"a"c"e" "t"h"e"m" "i"n"
"t"h"e" "l"a"b"o"r"a"t"o"r"y" "r"e"s"t" "f"r"a"m"e" "("s"e"e"
"M"o"l"a"r"o" "e"t" "a"l"." "2"0"1"3"," "f"o"r" "f"u"r"t"h"e"r" "d"e"t"a"i"l"s")"." "T"h"e" "c"o"m"p"u"t"e"d" "r"a"d"i"a"l"
"v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "a"c"c"o"u"n"t"s" "f"o"r" "t"h"e" "m"o"t"i"o"n"s"
"o"f" "t"h"e" "M"o"o"n" "w"i"t"h" "r"e"s"p"e"c"t" "t"o" "t"h"e" "o"b"s"e"r"v"e"r" "a"n"d" "t"h"e" "S"u"n"," "a"n"d" "a"l"s"o" "i"n"c"l"u"d"e"s" "a" "c"o"m"p"o"n"e"n"t" "o"f" "3"."2" "m" s""1"
"d"u"e" "t"o" "t"h"e" "r"o"t"a"t"i"o"n" "o"f" "t"h"e" "M"o"o"n","
"s"i"n"c"e" "t"h"e" "s"u"n"l"i"g"h"t" "i"m"p"a"c"t"s" "t"h"e" "r"e"c"e"d"i"n"g" "l"u"n"a"r" "h"e"m"i"s"p"h"e"r"e" "b"e"f"o"r"e"
"b"e"i"n"g" "r"e"f"l"e"c"t"e"d" "a"t" "a"n" "a"n"g"l"e" "o"f" "4"3"reR"
"a"t" "t"h"e" "t"i"m"e" "o"f" "t"h"e" "o"b"s"e"r"v"a"t"i"o"n"." "
====
So yes, they corrected for both orbital motion and for rotation of the
Moon.
BTW, the orbit of the Moon is known to mm accuracy because it can be
verified by laser reflection.
But why are you bothering to talk about such detail when you are going
to claim it is all faked anyway?
Jan
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
So yes, they corrected for both orital motion and for rotation of the
Moon.
BTW, the orbit of the Moon is known to mm accuracy because it can be
verified by laser reflection.
But why are you bothering to talk about such detail when you are going
to claim it is all faked anyway?
Jan
Exceptionally, during the initial disorder
it's not happening for the last 50 years.
Exceptionally, during the initial disorder
What "disorder", exactly?
NTS-2 was not an atomic clock accidentally falling out of a
laboratory window.
The clock was deliberately flown uncompensated.
Its rate was deliberately measured.
The relativistic prediction was known.
And, as YOU have now conceded, the measured rate was
"matching the reality of GPS".
So what exactly was the "mess"?
Which instrument was malfunctioning?
Which measurement was invalid?
Which systematic error produced the agreement?
Which published number is wrong?
You have provided none.
"Initial mess" is not an explanation.
It is merely the new label you invented AFTER discovering that
the experiment you said
"doesn't exist"
actually existed and gave the result you said was a delusion.
it's not happening for the last 50 years.
Of course not.
Once engineers had verified the uncompensated rate shift, they
COMPENSATED FOR IT.
Repeating the same twenty-day commissioning experiment on every
GPS satellite for fifty years would be rather a strange
engineering requirement.
Your argument has now become:
They never performed the experiment.
Oh, they did.
It agreed with relativity.
But only because it was "initial mess".
And then they stopped leaving the clocks uncompensated.
Yes, Maciej.
That's generally what engineers do after establishing that a
correction is necessary:
THEY APPLY THE CORRECTION.
Calling the control experiment "disorder" because you dislike
its result is not skepticism.
It's housekeeping.
On Mon, 21 Sep 26 10:27:39 +0000, Python wrote:
Yes. Everyone pretending that what he says are The Laws of Nature.
Ah.
So "ALL physicists EVER are frauds" has already become:
"Everyone claiming infallible access to Nature is a fraud."
That's rather different, Maciej.
And, amusingly, physicists generally DON'T claim that.
A physical "law" is not Nature whispering divine truth into Newton's or
Einstein's ear.
It is a mathematical model saying:
IF the model is correct,
THEN experiment should give X.
Experiment gives X, within stated uncertainty:
the model survives another test.
Experiment gives not-X:
the model has a problem.
That's precisely why physics has error bars, competing models,
experimental replication and theories that get replaced.
So your magnificent indictment of
ALL PHYSICISTS EVER
has survived approximately one post before becoming:
"People claiming to be infallible are frauds."
Splendid.
Galileo, Newton and Faraday may leave the courtroom.
He was right one one count. All the cowardly physicists who supported
making Einstein's theories official did so purely to save their own reputations after the MMX proved them all wrong.
We appear to be prosecuting the Pope.
The pope is a leading scammer...selling seats in something that doesn't exist.
Exceptionally, during the initial disorder
What "disorder", exactly?
NTS-2 was not an atomic clock accidentally falling out of a
laboratory window.
The relativistic prediction was known.
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 13:44:44 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 09/20/2026 09:03 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 07:34:41 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 09/20/2026 03:24 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 17:43:22 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:Sure, whatever, Einstein.
On 09/19/2026 03:23 PM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 15:33:24 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:PDF/A? Like what the Library of Congress Digital Preservation
On 09/18/2026 01:16 PM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:51:25 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com wrote:Will it have acid-free paper and library bindings?
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> posted:
[ ... ]
Quote from my book:
"A falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s while falling >>>>>>>>>>> from 26560km to Earth.
When will your book come out? What is it to be called? Who is >>>>>>>>>> the author?
Henry Wilson or Ralph someone or other? Who is the publisher? Or >>>>>>>>>> is it to be self-published because no serious publisher will >>>>>>>>>> touch it?
How much will it cost?
Not that I'm planning to buy it, or even to read it if a free >>>>>>>>>> copy is available,
but it would be nice to know.
I'm just tidying it up. It wont be expensive even though it is >>>>>>>>> undoubtedly the hardest book ever written. I will publish the >>>>>>>>> introduction if you like.
No. PDF style
What mathematical subject classification might it have,
or Library of Congress catalog section?
You are out of date grandpa.
You think MathSciNet and Zentralblatt will care much?
My book is about Physics, not the big equations that has turned it >>>>>>> into a circus. There is no difficult maths in my book, .
recommends?
No-one serious will take seriously your book unless it's on
acid-free paper with library bindings.
The Math & Physics is in neighboring "Q" and "P" sections.
Many mathematical papers have multiple MSC's, ....
It is not a paper book. It's an ebook. nobody important reads
printed books.
Please don't insult me. I am not a scammer.
Are you going to use TeX to write your book, perhaps MathML.
The book is already written. I am just adding a few more graphics.
Ordinary word processor. It's an easy reader. Physics without the big
maths. Simple algebraic equations are ASCII. No problem.
Carl Sagan says the reason humanity is intelligent is "libraries".
Not "subscriptions".
That said, then of course you'll have an extensive bibliography and make
citations of all the accounts of work in the field as from whatever
references you may select, as hopefully represent an honest account of
the known authorities throughout the field, not just wrapping-old-as-new
a "parallel reconstruction" of events.
Bibliographies are history. Just do an internet search and you will find
it. Journals will all disappear soon. Anyone can publish anything on the Internet.
The system was not running yet.
NTS-2 was not an atomic clock accidentally falling out of a
laboratory window.
Yes it was.
"If you make clocks fitting the mad prophecies..."
The system was not running yet.
Irrelevant.
GPS did not need to be operational for an atomic clock aboard
NTS-2 to tick.
"If you make clocks fitting the mad prophecies..."
Excellent.
Then tell us HOW the NTS-2 clock was "made to fit".
20 days, 50 years ago, initial disorder -
combined together give:
an exception of no significance.
20 days, 50 years ago, initial disorder -
combined together give:
an exception of no significance.
No, Maciej.
NTS-2 was merely the particularly amusing counterexample to your
claim that such an uncompensated clock
-a-a-a-a-a-a "simply doesn't exist".
That they existed is not a counterexample to
"they don't exist".
Serious clocks made for serious measurements are different
That they existed is not a counterexample to
"they don't exist".
Maciej, please preserve this sentence.
It may be the finest summary of your position so far:
-aTheir existence is not a counterexample
-ato "they don't exist".
Did Roman Empire exist? Yes.
Does it exist? No.
We were talking of uncompensated clocks at GPS, not about
uncompensated clocks in sandpits of relativistic idiots.
Did Roman Empire exist? Yes.
Does it exist? No.
If by "they don't exist" you meant specifically:
THAT IS THE POINT.The point is: the measurement result is - 24h,
The point is: the measurement result is - 24h,
though The Shit is predicting 24h+38us.
A fanatic idiot explaining why the measurements
don't fit his Shit
The point is: the measurement result is - 24h,
though The Shit is predicting 24h+38us.
No.
That is simply the false premise you keep repeating.
Relativity does NOT predict
-a-a-a-a-a-a 24 h + 38 us
for the COMPENSATED operational GPS clock.
It just predicts 24h+38us for any clock.
It just predicts 24h+38us for any clock.
Ah. ANY clock.
So if engineers deliberately make a clock run 38 us/day slow,
Einstein magically reaches inside it and resets the oscillator.
He had no clue such clocks will exist.
He had no clue such clocks will exist.
Of course Einstein didn't know cesium clocks would exist.
You may also lie that a calibrated
clock is no longer a clock
The measurement results remain
to be 24h where The Shit predicts
24h +38us.
measurement result depend of what you
(and your theory) want to get.
You may also lie that a calibrated
clock is no longer a clock
Nobody said that.
You are confusing "clock" with "unmodified realization of
proper time", and calibration with deliberate rate offset.
If I adjust a clock to lose 38 us/day, it remains a clock.
It just loses 38 us/day.
Relativity does not contain the remarkable postulate:
-a-a-a-a-a ALL CLOCKS IGNORE THEIR ADJUSTMENTS.
The measurement results remain
to be 24h where The Shit predicts
24h +38us.
No.
You keep assigning the prediction for the UNCOMPENSATED clock
to the COMPENSATED one.
measurement result depend of what you
(and your theory) want to get.
Excellent.
Then explain NTS-2.
The correction was OFF.
Relativity predicted the rate shift.
The clock produced it anyway.
Apparently Nature forgot to read the conspiracy theory.
WHY were they chosen? WHY were they marked
as almost-perfect?
Because they were fitting your madness.
Nature has nothing to do with our clocks and
doesn't give a damn to them.
WHY were they chosen? WHY were they marked
as almost-perfect?
Because they were fitting your madness.
No.
They were chosen because they were stable clocks.
You have now invented a wonderfully self-sealing experimental
method:
-aclock disagrees with relativity -> evidence against relativity
-aclock agrees with relativity-a-a-a -> it was chosen because it
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a agrees with relativity
Nature has nothing to do with our clocks and
doesn't give a damn to them.
Excellent.
Then your famous
-a-a-a-a-a "measurement result is 24h, goodbye relativity"
has nothing to do with Nature either.
Time, in general, is a coordinate.
As a coordinate - it is chosen
On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 21:32:26 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:19:08 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 20.09.2026 00:32, skrev HenryWilson:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:49:05 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The experiment performed by the High Accuracy Radial Velocity
Planet Searcher (HARPS) in 2020 measured the gravitational red
shift of light from the Sun to be 638-#6 m/s.
??/? = v/c = 2.13e-6 where v = 638 m/s
??/? = 2.13e-6 means a longer wavelength, that's a red shift.
The equation f? = c
where c is a constant, is always true by definition.
?f/f = - 2.13e-6 means lower frequency, that's a red shift.
That experiment is a typically faked attempt to make Einstein lookThis statement says it all!
good.
It is riddled with wild assumptions and errors.
According Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson:
all experiments confirming SR/GR are faked, and all the physicists
involved in the experiments are frauds.
A rather remarkable claim from a fully qualified physicist with these
credentials:
On 27.05.2010, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
<<
I have a full degree in physics and maths, including QM,
relativity, thermodynamics, optics, nuclear, partial differential
equations, laplace transforms, etc. I also have a completely
separate science degree majoring in psych and genetics with a few
other biological and physics subjects included.
I spent eleven years at two of the best universities,
overall. I was an experimental officer, in physics research in
Australia's CSIRO and other institutions for over twenty years.
You asked for it. I gave you the details. I know it was hard for you to
discover that someone on this NG was actually a real physicist but
that's the facts man.
(In his modesty, he forgot to mention is doctorate.)
My book is worth a dozen PHds...but I wouldn't accept one.
While trying to bluff your way into physics you would do well to
remember that the correct spelling is PhD.
...and yes...lots of experiments have been faked in order to support
Einstein. For instance most evidence against Newton was derived from
wrongly interpreted interferometry. Paul's latest is HARPS. Q: Why do
you think they they used moonlight? A: so they could use the Doppler
shift caused by its motion away from the sun to fake a redshift.
As for faking, from the paper:
====
E"a"c"h" "s"p"e"c"t"r"u"m" "w"a"s" "c"o"r"r"e"c"t"e"d" "f"o"r"
r"a"d"i"a"l" "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "("s"e"e" "T"a"b"l"e" "1")" "u"s"i"n"g" th"e" "J"P"L" "e"p"h"e"m"e"r"i"s" "t"o" "p"l"a"c"e" "t"h"e"m" "i"n"
"t"h"e" "l"a"b"o"r"a"t"o"r"y" "r"e"s"t" "f"r"a"m"e" "("s"e"e"
"M"o"l"a"r"o" "e"t" "a"l"." "2"0"1"3"," "f"o"r" "f"u"r"t"h"e"r" "d"e"t"a"i"l"s")"." "T"h"e" "c"o"m"p"u"t"e"d" "r"a"d"i"a"l" "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "a"c"c"o"u"n"t"s" "f"o"r" "t"h"e" "m"o"t"i"o"n"s"
"o"f" "t"h"e" "M"o"o"n" "w"i"t"h" "r"e"s"p"e"c"t" "t"o" "t"h"e" "o"b"s"e"r"v"e"r" "a"n"d" "t"h"e" "S"u"n"," "a"n"d" "a"l"s"o" "i"n"c"l"u"d"e"s" "a" "c"o"m"p"o"n"e"n"t" "o"f" "3"."2" "m" s""1"
"d"u"e" "t"o" "t"h"e" "r"o"t"a"t"i"o"n" "o"f" "t"h"e" "M"o"o"n"," "s"i"n"c"e" "t"h"e" "s"u"n"l"i"g"h"t" "i"m"p"a"c"t"s" "t"h"e" "r"e"c"e"d"i"n"g" "l"u"n"a"r" "h"e"m"i"s"p"h"e"r"e" "b"e"f"o"r"e" "b"e"i"n"g" "r"e"f"l"e"c"t"e"d" "a"t" "a"n" "a"n"g"l"e" "o"f" "4"3"reR" "a"t" "t"h"e" "t"i"m"e" "o"f" "t"h"e" "o"b"s"e"r"v"a"t"i"o"n"." "
====
So yes, they corrected for both orbital motion and for rotation of the Moon.
Ahuh No!
They corrected assuming constant c.
Light reflects from a moving mirror (or moon) at c+/-2v.
So the experiment was very easy to fake.
Light leaving a star is blue shifted in wavelength. It WAR anywhere is
always its WER plus proper Doppler.
BTW, the orbit of the Moon is known to mm accuracy because it can be verified by laser reflection.
...and the fact that its reflected light moves at c+2v is 100% certain.
But why are you bothering to talk about such detail when you are going
to claim it is all faked anyway?
becUASE YOU INDOCTRINATED FOOLS STILL THINK YOU CAN PROVE THE GOD EINSTEIN CORRECT BY USING CIRCULAR LOGIC.
On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 21:32:26 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
So yes, they corrected for both orital motion and for rotation of the
Moon.
BTW, the orbit of the Moon is known to mm accuracy because it can be verified by laser reflection.
But why are you bothering to talk about such detail when you are going
to claim it is all faked anyway?
Why did they use reflected light from the moon anyway? Why the hell didn't they just use direct sunlight?
Was it because they knew they could not fake that?
Time, in general, is a coordinate.
As a coordinate - it is chosen
And there it is.
You have just confused coordinate time with proper time.
Yes, coordinates are chosen.
No, the elapsed proper time recorded by an ideal clock between
Heard of Occam's razor? No such thing, sorry.
"ideal" is relative as hell
the professionals of GPS have ... a different opinion
Heard of Occam's razor? No such thing, sorry.
Occam's razor does not say:
-a-a "Delete quantities Maciej doesn't like."
Proper time is not an additional coordinate.
"ideal" is relative as hell
No.
"Ideal clock" is a technical idealization, not a TripAdvisor
rating.
It means a clock whose elapsed reading realizes proper time
along its worldline.
the professionals of GPS have ... a different opinion
They do something much less mystical.
For a GPS professional (or other sane people) it means a clock
indicating coordinate (GPS or another) time with ideal accuracy.
For a GPS professional (or other sane people) it means a clock
indicating coordinate (GPS or another) time with ideal accuracy.
There is a slight problem, Maciej.
We can actually check what GPS and time-metrology professionals say.
And they explicitly distinguish
-a-a-a-a-a-a proper time tau
from
-a-a-a-a-a-a coordinate time t,
You probably lie, like usual, but it's not even worthy checking.
Did you ask them whether your desynchronizing clocks are
ideal for them?
BTW. Which time do they pin "simultaneity" to?
You probably lie, like usual, but it's not even worthy checking.
Beautiful.
-a-a "You probably lie."
followed immediately by
-a-a "It's not even worthy checking."
That is quite an efficient epistemology.
Accuse first.
Explicitly refuse to check.
Declare victory.
Unfortunately, I DID check.
Here is Neil Ashby, writing specifically about relativity in GPS:
-a-a "the proper time elapsing on the orbiting GPS clocks
-a-a-a cannot be simply used to transfer time from one
-a-a-a transmission event to another."
So, did he also write that your desynchronizing
idiocies are ideal? Yes or no
So, did he also write that your desynchronizing
idiocies are ideal? Yes or no
YES.
And thank you for asking so precisely.
Ashby & Patla, NIST:
Fuck those religious maniacs. Any GPS engineer?
Fuck those religious maniacs. Any GPS engineer?
Ah.
First it was:
-a-a "GPS professionals (or other sane people)"
So I quoted GPS/time-metrology professionals.
No, you quoted 2 idiots from your bunch of idiots.
ask a GPS engineer whether he understands that it's perfect
when the clocks desynchronize
On 9/22/2026 3:00 PM, Python wrote:
Heard of Occam's razor? No such thing, sorry.
Occam's razor does not say:
"Delete quantities Maciej doesn't like."
Proper time is not an additional coordinate.
It is nothing indicated by delusional
clocks imagined by some brainwashed
fanatic idiots.
"ideal" is relative as hell
No.
Yes.
"Ideal clock" is a technical idealization, not a TripAdvisor
rating.
Still professionals of GPS have a different
opinion about it than your bunch of ignorant
idiots brainwashed by a mad religion.
It means a clock whose elapsed reading realizes proper time
along its worldline.
It means for you. For a GPS professional (or other
sane people) it means a clock indicating coordinate
(GPS or another) time with ideal accuracy.
the professionals of GPS have ... a different opinion
They do something much less mystical.
There is nothing mystical in having a different
opinion than a brainwashed religious maniac
worshiping a mumbling madman.
No, you quoted 2 idiots from your bunch of idiots.
And there it is.
You asked for:
-a-a-a-a-a-a "GPS professionals (or other sane people)"
I produced people who actually publish professionally on
GPS timekeeping.
ask a GPS engineer whether he understands that it's perfect
when the clocks desynchronize
And that is not even the claim.
Nobody says:
-a-a-a-a-a-a "desynchronization is perfect."
Anyway, that's it. Your Shit didn't come from
your precious experiments, it came from an
assertion that perfect clocks are desynchronizing
clocks
Anyway, that's it. Your Shit didn't come from
your precious experiments, it came from an
assertion that perfect clocks are desynchronizing
clocks
No, Maciej.
At this point you are simply making things up.
Nobody asserted:
-a-a "perfect clocks are desynchronizing clocks"
Everyone of you is asserting that perfect clocks are
desynchronizing clocks.
because a mumbling madman has asserted it is.
Ask a GPS engineer
Everyone of you is asserting that perfect clocks are
desynchronizing clocks.
No, Maciej.
Repeating a false statement three times does not turn it into
the statement you are supposedly criticizing.
You are confusing two completely different properties:
-a-a IDEAL CLOCK:
-a-a-a-a-a-a accurately measures proper time along its worldline.
So - aren't those ideal clocks of yours
desynchronizing clocks?
ask a GPS engineer whether he understands that it's ideal
when the clocks desynchronize
Your Shit didn't come from your precious experiments
So - aren't those ideal clocks of yours
desynchronizing clocks?
YES.
At last.
Two ideal clocks following different worldlines can accumulate
different amounts of proper time.
YES.
At last.
because a mumbling madman has asserted it is.
YES.
At last.
No, Maciej.
You have just demonstrated the problem almost perfectly.
The question to which I answered YES was:
-a-a "Can two ideal clocks following different worldlines
-a-a-a accumulate different amounts of proper time?"
YES.
nobody of your bunch of idiots is asserting that
ideal/perfect clocks are desynchronizing clocks...
Yes, everyone is asserting that, starting from yourself.
ask a GPS engineer whether he understands that it's perfect
when the clocks desynchronize
nobody of your bunch of idiots is asserting that
ideal/perfect clocks are desynchronizing clocks...
Yes, everyone is asserting that, starting from yourself.
Yes, Maciej:
-a-a IDEAL clocks can become DESYNCHRONIZED.
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 21:32:26 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
You asked for it. I gave you the details. I know it was hard for you
to discover that someone on this NG was actually a real physicist
but that's the facts man.
(In his modesty, he forgot to mention is doctorate.)
My book is worth a dozen PHds...but I wouldn't accept one.
While trying to bluff your way into physics you would do well to
remember that the correct spelling is PhD.
...and yes...lots of experiments have been faked in order to support
Einstein. For instance most evidence against Newton was derived from
wrongly interpreted interferometry. Paul's latest is HARPS. Q: Why
do you think they they used moonlight? A: so they could use the
Doppler shift caused by its motion away from the sun to fake a
redshift.
As for faking, from the paper:
====
E"a"c"h" "s"p"e"c"t"r"u"m" "w"a"s" "c"o"r"r"e"c"t"e"d" "f"o"r"
r"a"d"i"a"l" "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "("s"e"e" "T"a"b"l"e" "1")"
"u"s"i"n"g" th"e" "J"P"L" "e"p"h"e"m"e"r"i"s" "t"o" "p"l"a"c"e"
"t"h"e"m" "i"n" "t"h"e" "l"a"b"o"r"a"t"o"r"y" "r"e"s"t" "f"r"a"m"e"
"("s"e"e" "M"o"l"a"r"o" "e"t" "a"l"." "2"0"1"3"," "f"o"r"
"f"u"r"t"h"e"r" "d"e"t"a"i"l"s")"." "T"h"e" "c"o"m"p"u"t"e"d"
"r"a"d"i"a"l" "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "a"c"c"o"u"n"t"s" "f"o"r" "t"h"e"
"m"o"t"i"o"n"s" "o"f" "t"h"e" "M"o"o"n" "w"i"t"h" "r"e"s"p"e"c"t"
"t"o" "t"h"e" "o"b"s"e"r"v"e"r" "a"n"d" "t"h"e" "S"u"n"," "a"n"d"
"a"l"s"o" "i"n"c"l"u"d"e"s" "a" "c"o"m"p"o"n"e"n"t" "o"f" "3"."2"
"m" s""1" "d"u"e" "t"o" "t"h"e" "r"o"t"a"t"i"o"n" "o"f" "t"h"e"
"M"o"o"n"," "s"i"n"c"e" "t"h"e" "s"u"n"l"i"g"h"t" "i"m"p"a"c"t"s"
"t"h"e" "r"e"c"e"d"i"n"g" "l"u"n"a"r" "h"e"m"i"s"p"h"e"r"e"
"b"e"f"o"r"e" "b"e"i"n"g" "r"e"f"l"e"c"t"e"d" "a"t" "a"n" "a"n"g"l"e"
"o"f" "4"3"reR"
"a"t" "t"h"e" "t"i"m"e" "o"f" "t"h"e" "o"b"s"e"r"v"a"t"i"o"n"." "
====
So yes, they corrected for both orbital motion and for rotation of
the Moon.
Ahuh No!
They corrected assuming constant c.
Light reflects from a moving mirror (or moon) at c+/-2v.
So the experiment was very easy to fake.
So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is
done, and should e done.
You need a theoretical framework for that,
and in -in that framework- you interpret the observations.
You don't throw in some extra unrelated and incompatible hypothesis.
Jan
On 09/21/2026 12:06 PM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 26 10:27:39 +0000, Python wrote:
Yes. Everyone pretending that what he says are The Laws of Nature.
Like has already been established here already, Michelson-Morley doesn't
say anything about real space-contraction.
(And MMX is not the Minuteman ICBM fleet.)
The system was not running yet.
Irrelevant.
GPS did not need to be operational for an atomic clock aboard NTS-2 to
tick.
That's the nice thing about an accusation of experimental fraud:
eventually you have to explain the fraud.
So explain it.
How was an UNCOMPENSATED cesium clock engineered to fake the effect of
the compensation that had deliberately been left OFF?
One mechanism will do.
On 09/21/2026 12:15 PM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 13:44:44 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:Says who?
On 09/20/2026 09:03 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 07:34:41 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:Carl Sagan says the reason humanity is intelligent is "libraries".
On 09/20/2026 03:24 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 17:43:22 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:Sure, whatever, Einstein.
On 09/19/2026 03:23 PM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 15:33:24 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:PDF/A? Like what the Library of Congress Digital Preservation
On 09/18/2026 01:16 PM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:51:25 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>Will it have acid-free paper and library bindings?
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> posted:
[ ... ]
Quote from my book:
"A falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s while falling >>>>>>>>>>>> from 26560km to Earth.
When will your book come out? What is it to be called? Who is >>>>>>>>>>> the author?
Henry Wilson or Ralph someone or other? Who is the publisher? >>>>>>>>>>> Or is it to be self-published because no serious publisher >>>>>>>>>>> will touch it?
How much will it cost?
Not that I'm planning to buy it, or even to read it if a free >>>>>>>>>>> copy is available,
but it would be nice to know.
I'm just tidying it up. It wont be expensive even though it is >>>>>>>>>> undoubtedly the hardest book ever written. I will publish the >>>>>>>>>> introduction if you like.
No. PDF style
What mathematical subject classification might it have,
or Library of Congress catalog section?
You are out of date grandpa.
You think MathSciNet and Zentralblatt will care much?
My book is about Physics, not the big equations that has turned >>>>>>>> it into a circus. There is no difficult maths in my book, .
recommends?
No-one serious will take seriously your book unless it's on
acid-free paper with library bindings.
The Math & Physics is in neighboring "Q" and "P" sections.
Many mathematical papers have multiple MSC's, ....
It is not a paper book. It's an ebook. nobody important reads
printed books.
Please don't insult me. I am not a scammer.
Are you going to use TeX to write your book, perhaps MathML.
The book is already written. I am just adding a few more graphics.
Ordinary word processor. It's an easy reader. Physics without the big
maths. Simple algebraic equations are ASCII. No problem.
Not "subscriptions".
That said, then of course you'll have an extensive bibliography and
make citations of all the accounts of work in the field as from
whatever references you may select, as hopefully represent an honest
account of the known authorities throughout the field, not just
wrapping-old-as-new a "parallel reconstruction" of events.
Bibliographies are history. Just do an internet search and you will
find it. Journals will all disappear soon. Anyone can publish anything
on the Internet.
On Tue, 22 Sep 26 09:17:14 +0000, Python wrote:
The system was not running yet.
Irrelevant.
GPS did not need to be operational for an atomic clock aboard NTS-2 to
tick.
That's the nice thing about an accusation of experimental fraud:
eventually you have to explain the fraud.
So explain it.
How was an UNCOMPENSATED cesium clock engineered to fake the effect of
the compensation that had deliberately been left OFF?
One mechanism will do.
The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are all
in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground clocks
cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't contain any Cs atoms.
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:19:08 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
On 27.05.2010, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
"I have a full degree in physics and maths, including QM, relativity,
thermodynamics, optics, nuclear, partial differential equations,
laplace transforms, etc. I also have a completely separate science
degree majoring in psych and genetics with a few other biological and
physics subjects included.
I spent eleven years at two of the best universities,
overall. I was an experimental officer, in physics research in
Australia's CSIRO and other institutions for over twenty years."
You asked for it. I gave you the details. I know it was hard for you to discover that someone on this NG was actually a real physicist but that's
the facts man.
(In his modesty, he forgot to mention is doctorate.)
My book is worth a dozen PHds...but I wouldn't accept one.
Den 22.09.2026 19:51, skrev HenryWilson:
On Tue, 22 Sep 26 09:17:14 +0000, Python wrote:
The system was not running yet.
Irrelevant.
GPS did not need to be operational for an atomic clock aboard NTS-2 to
tick.
That's the nice thing about an accusation of experimental fraud:
eventually you have to explain the fraud.
So explain it.
How was an UNCOMPENSATED cesium clock engineered to fake the effect of
the compensation that had deliberately been left OFF?
One mechanism will do.
The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are all
in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground clocks
cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't contain
any Cs
atoms.
Your wristwatch is counting seconds correctly, isn't it?
IDEAL clocks can become DESYNCHRONIZED.
it's ideal and perfect when the clocks desynchronize
because a mumbling madman has asserted it is.
Den 22.09.2026 19:51, skrev HenryWilson:
On Tue, 22 Sep 26 09:17:14 +0000, Python wrote:Your wristwatch is counting seconds correctly, isn't it? Your wristwatch
The system was not running yet.
Irrelevant.
GPS did not need to be operational for an atomic clock aboard NTS-2 to
tick.
That's the nice thing about an accusation of experimental fraud:
eventually you have to explain the fraud.
So explain it.
How was an UNCOMPENSATED cesium clock engineered to fake the effect of
the compensation that had deliberately been left OFF?
One mechanism will do.
The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are
all in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground
clocks cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't
contain any Cs atoms.
is receiving signals from th SV's, isn't it?
Can you please explain the algorithm that can make your wristwatch count seconds with the right frequency, when the SV-clocks have an arbitrary
(but equal) frequency?
Den 21.09.2026 20:56, skrev HenryWilson:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:19:08 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
On 27.05.2010, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
"I have a full degree in physics and maths, including QM,
relativity,
thermodynamics, optics, nuclear, partial differential equations,
laplace transforms, etc. I also have a completely separate science
degree majoring in psych and genetics with a few other biological
and physics subjects included.
I spent eleven years at two of the best universities,
overall. I was an experimental officer, in physics research in
Australia's CSIRO and other institutions for over twenty years."
You asked for it. I gave you the details. I know it was hard for you to
discover that someone on this NG was actually a real physicist but
that's the facts man.
You are no physicist, Ralph.
Anybody who has ever read one of your posts will see that you are
bluffing.
(In his modesty, he forgot to mention is doctorate.)
My book is worth a dozen PHds...but I wouldn't accept one.
Does that mean that you bluffed when you pretended to be a Doctor of
Science? :-D
IDEAL clocks can become DESYNCHRONIZED.
Correct.
it's ideal and perfect when the clocks desynchronize
Still wrong.
Maciej, these two sentences DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING.
-a-a Perfect clocks can give different readings.
does not mean:
-a-a Giving different readings makes clocks perfect.
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 21:32:26 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
You asked for it. I gave you the details. I know it was hard for you
to discover that someone on this NG was actually a real physicist
but that's the facts man.
(In his modesty, he forgot to mention is doctorate.)
My book is worth a dozen PHds...but I wouldn't accept one.
While trying to bluff your way into physics you would do well to
remember that the correct spelling is PhD.
...and yes...lots of experiments have been faked in order to support
Einstein. For instance most evidence against Newton was derived from
wrongly interpreted interferometry. Paul's latest is HARPS. Q: Why
do you think they they used moonlight? A: so they could use the
Doppler shift caused by its motion away from the sun to fake a
redshift.
As for faking, from the paper:
====
E"a"c"h" "s"p"e"c"t"r"u"m" "w"a"s" "c"o"r"r"e"c"t"e"d" "f"o"r"
r"a"d"i"a"l" "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "("s"e"e" "T"a"b"l"e" "1")"
"u"s"i"n"g" th"e" "J"P"L" "e"p"h"e"m"e"r"i"s" "t"o" "p"l"a"c"e"
"t"h"e"m" "i"n" "t"h"e" "l"a"b"o"r"a"t"o"r"y" "r"e"s"t" "f"r"a"m"e"
"("s"e"e" "M"o"l"a"r"o" "e"t" "a"l"." "2"0"1"3"," "f"o"r"
"f"u"r"t"h"e"r" "d"e"t"a"i"l"s")"." "T"h"e" "c"o"m"p"u"t"e"d"
"r"a"d"i"a"l" "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "a"c"c"o"u"n"t"s" "f"o"r" "t"h"e"
"m"o"t"i"o"n"s" "o"f" "t"h"e" "M"o"o"n" "w"i"t"h" "r"e"s"p"e"c"t"
"t"o" "t"h"e" "o"b"s"e"r"v"e"r" "a"n"d" "t"h"e" "S"u"n"," "a"n"d"
"a"l"s"o" "i"n"c"l"u"d"e"s" "a" "c"o"m"p"o"n"e"n"t" "o"f" "3"."2"
"m" s""1" "d"u"e" "t"o" "t"h"e" "r"o"t"a"t"i"o"n" "o"f" "t"h"e"
"M"o"o"n"," "s"i"n"c"e" "t"h"e" "s"u"n"l"i"g"h"t" "i"m"p"a"c"t"s"
"t"h"e" "r"e"c"e"d"i"n"g" "l"u"n"a"r" "h"e"m"i"s"p"h"e"r"e"
"b"e"f"o"r"e" "b"e"i"n"g" "r"e"f"l"e"c"t"e"d" "a"t" "a"n" "a"n"g"l"e"
"o"f" "4"3"reR"
"a"t" "t"h"e" "t"i"m"e" "o"f" "t"h"e" "o"b"s"e"r"v"a"t"i"o"n"." "
====
So yes, they corrected for both orbital motion and for rotation of
the Moon.
Ahuh No!
They corrected assuming constant c.
Light reflects from a moving mirror (or moon) at c+/-2v.
So the experiment was very easy to fake.
So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is
done, and should e done.
You need a theoretical framework for that,
You need the correct theoretical framework.
and in -in that framework- you interpret the observations.
You don't throw in some extra unrelated and incompatible hypothesis.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2Jan
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 21:46:57 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 22.09.2026 19:51, skrev HenryWilson:
Your wristwatch is counting seconds correctly, isn't it? Your wristwatch
The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are
all in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground
clocks cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't
contain any Cs atoms.
is receiving signals from th SV's, isn't it?
Can you please explain the algorithm that can make your wristwatch count
seconds with the right frequency, when the SV-clocks have an arbitrary
(but equal) frequency?
The watch does not need ultra high accuracy. Its instantaneous readings
are subtracted from the emission times of four received signals to produce four distances using constant c.
The received signals do not arrive
simultaneously but as long as the difference in the watch's time and that
of the orbiting clocks is accurately monitored, it can be easily corrected out. The main requirement is that the arrival time DIFFERENCES are
recorded accurately and, for that, the watch's rate does not need to be highly precise. Get it?
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 21:49:05 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 21.09.2026 20:56, skrev HenryWilson:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:19:08 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
On 27.05.2010, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
"I have a full degree in physics and maths, including QM,
relativity,
thermodynamics, optics, nuclear, partial differential equations,
laplace transforms, etc. I also have a completely separate science >>>> degree majoring in psych and genetics with a few other biological
and physics subjects included.
I spent eleven years at two of the best universities,
overall. I was an experimental officer, in physics research in
Australia's CSIRO and other institutions for over twenty years."
You asked for it. I gave you the details. I know it was hard for you to
discover that someone on this NG was actually a real physicist but
that's the facts man.
You are no physicist, Ralph.
Well I was once paid by the government to teach the subject for a couple
of years. Should I give them back the money.
Anybody who has ever read one of your posts will see that you are
bluffing.
(In his modesty, he forgot to mention is doctorate.)
My book is worth a dozen PHds...but I wouldn't accept one.
Does that mean that you bluffed when you pretended to be a Doctor of
Science? :-D
I cannot recall ever doing that.
Den 23.09.2026 03:07, skrev HenryWilson:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 21:49:05 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 21.09.2026 20:56, skrev HenryWilson:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:19:08 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
On 27.05.2010, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
"I have a full degree in physics and maths, including QM,
relativity,
thermodynamics, optics, nuclear, partial differential equations, >>>>> laplace transforms, etc. I also have a completely separate science >>>>> degree majoring in psych and genetics with a few other biological >>>>> and physics subjects included.
I spent eleven years at two of the best universities,
overall. I was an experimental officer, in physics research in
Australia's CSIRO and other institutions for over twenty years."
You asked for it. I gave you the details. I know it was hard for you to >>>> discover that someone on this NG was actually a real physicist but
that's the facts man.
You are no physicist, Ralph.
Well I was once paid by the government to teach the subject for a couple
of years. Should I give them back the money.
Was "the subject" you taught for a couple of years
physics and maths, including QM and relativity?
Was it at one of the best universities in Australia you learned
that relativity was nonsense?
Anybody who has ever read one of your posts will see that you are
bluffing.
(In his modesty, he forgot to mention is doctorate.)
My book is worth a dozen PHds...but I wouldn't accept one.
Does that mean that you bluffed when you pretended to be a Doctor of
Science? :-D
I cannot recall ever doing that.
That's a plane lie!
From February 2008 to February 2009 you called yourself
"Dr. Henri Wilson" and you signed your posts with
"Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)"
From April 2009 to June 2012 you called yourself "Henry Wilson, DSc"
In 2016 you called yourself HGWilson, DSc.
Since you reappeared in 2026 you call yourself "HenryWilson"
Don't pretend that you do not remember that you ten years ago
claimed to be a "DSc".
And what can DSc mean if not "Doctor of Science"?
But thanks for confirming that you were bluffing.
The MMX showed light moves at c relative to its source and everything at rest with that source...so rotating the apparatus achieved nothing. The
null result proved Newton correct...
but did not refute Einstein.
On Tue, 22 Sep 26 09:17:14 +0000, Python wrote:You do not know what you are talking about. The NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 test satellite had an unmodified Cs-133-based atomic clock aboard (and a
The system was not running yet.
Irrelevant.
GPS did not need to be operational for an atomic clock aboard NTS-2 to
tick.
That's the nice thing about an accusation of experimental fraud:
eventually you have to explain the fraud.
So explain it.
How was an UNCOMPENSATED cesium clock engineered to fake the effect of
the compensation that had deliberately been left OFF?
One mechanism will do.
The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are
all in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground
clocks cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't
contain any Cs atoms.
HenryWilson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 26 09:17:14 +0000, Python wrote:You do not know what you are talking about. The NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 test satellite had an unmodified Cs-133-based atomic clock aboard (and a
The system was not running yet.
Irrelevant.
GPS did not need to be operational for an atomic clock aboard NTS-2 to
tick.
That's the nice thing about an accusation of experimental fraud:
eventually you have to explain the fraud.
So explain it.
How was an UNCOMPENSATED cesium clock engineered to fake the effect of
the compensation that had deliberately been left OFF?
One mechanism will do.
The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are
all in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground
clocks cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't
contain any Cs atoms.
frequency synthesizer to modify its output, should it become necessary).
After a few days in orbit, *without* the frequency synthesizer, it was _ahead_ of the ground clocks, almost precisely as general relativity had predicted. Read the report:
HenryWilson wrote:
The MMX showed light moves at c relative to its source and everything at
rest with that source...so rotating the apparatus achieved nothing. The
null result proved Newton correct...
Nonsense. Newton was wrong about light with regard to what it must be described as. Foucault, at the latest, disproved Newton's theory of corpuscular light:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory>
but did not refute Einstein.
How could it? It was made 18 years before Einstein postulated special relativity. *facepalm*
reminder :
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Search/searchresult.html?sw=wilson
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Search/searchresult.html?sw=rabbidge
Den 23.09.2026 02:38, skrev HenryWilson:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 21:46:57 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 22.09.2026 19:51, skrev HenryWilson:
Your wristwatch is counting seconds correctly, isn't it? Your
The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are
all in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground
clocks cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't
contain any Cs atoms.
wristwatch is receiving signals from th SV's, isn't it?
Can you please explain the algorithm that can make your wristwatch
count seconds with the right frequency, when the SV-clocks have an
arbitrary (but equal) frequency?
So you wish to discuss how the GPS works.
OK, let's do that.
The watch does not need ultra high accuracy. Its instantaneous readings
are subtracted from the emission times of four received signals to
produce four distances using constant c.
The speed of the signal from the SVs is not constant.
The signal passes through the ionosphere which is a plasma.
The speed of EM-waves in the L-band are slower in a plasma than it is in vacuum, so there will be a delay of the signal when it passes through
the ionosphere. The delay will change with time. To compensate for this
there is a 'model' of the ionosphere in the receiver. Eight parameters
in this model describes the current delay in the ionosphere.
The monitoring stations continuously measure the properties of the
ionosphere and calculate the eight parameters and upload them to the
SVs, which in turn send them down to the receiver. The varying delay in
the ionosphere is the most serious source of error in the GPS, and the precision would be very poor without this correction.
The received signals do not arrive simultaneously but as long as the
difference in the watch's time and that of the orbiting clocks is
accurately monitored, it can be easily corrected out. The main
requirement is that the arrival time DIFFERENCES are recorded
accurately and, for that, the watch's rate does not need to be highly
precise. Get it?
Your guesses are wrong.
The only data the receiver needs from each SV is the GPS-time when the
signal it is receiving NOW was sent.
The receiver is tracking the SVs continuously, so at any time it knows
when the signal it is receiving NOW was sent from the SV.
The receiver knows the precise orbit of each SV.Aha! Actually not exactly. The clocks are not precisely where they are believed to be..
(Nominal orbit + received corrections).
So when the receiver knows the GPS-time when the signal was sent, it
also knows the SV's position. So the receiver knows (x,y,z,t) for each
SV. With these data from four SVs the four unknown (x,y,z,t) of the
receiver can be found.
How the receiver at any time can know the _exact_ time (within very few
ns) when the signal was sent is a rather long story.
You can find the whole story here: https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
If you really want to learn how the GPS work, I can help you.
But I don't think you want to learn. Or do you?
HenryWilson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 26 09:17:14 +0000, Python wrote:You do not know what you are talking about. The NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 test satellite had an unmodified Cs-133-based atomic clock aboard (and a
The system was not running yet.
Irrelevant.
GPS did not need to be operational for an atomic clock aboard NTS-2 to
tick.
That's the nice thing about an accusation of experimental fraud:
eventually you have to explain the fraud.
So explain it.
How was an UNCOMPENSATED cesium clock engineered to fake the effect of
the compensation that had deliberately been left OFF?
One mechanism will do.
The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are
all in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground
clocks cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't
contain any Cs atoms.
frequency synthesizer to modify its output, should it become necessary).
After a few days in orbit, *without* the frequency synthesizer, it was _ahead_ of the ground clocks, almost precisely as general relativity had predicted. Read the report:
<https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA058591.pdf>
On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 18:59:48 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 26 09:17:14 +0000, Python wrote:You do not know what you are talking about. The NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 test
How was an UNCOMPENSATED cesium clock engineered to fake the effect of >>>> the compensation that had deliberately been left OFF?
One mechanism will do.
The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are
all in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground
clocks cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't
contain any Cs atoms.
satellite had an unmodified Cs-133-based atomic clock aboard (and a
frequency synthesizer to modify its output, should it become necessary).
After a few days in orbit, *without* the frequency synthesizer, it was
_ahead_ of the ground clocks, almost precisely as general relativity had
predicted. Read the report:
<https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA058591.pdf>
So what? Anything sent into free fall will change slightly.
On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 18:59:48 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 26 09:17:14 +0000, Python wrote:You do not know what you are talking about. The NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 test
How was an UNCOMPENSATED cesium clock engineered to fake the effect of >>>> the compensation that had deliberately been left OFF?
One mechanism will do.
The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are
all in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground
clocks cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't
contain any Cs atoms.
satellite had an unmodified Cs-133-based atomic clock aboard (and a
frequency synthesizer to modify its output, should it become necessary).
After a few days in orbit, *without* the frequency synthesizer, it was
_ahead_ of the ground clocks, almost precisely as general relativity had
predicted. Read the report:
<https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA058591.pdf>
So what? Anything sent into free fall will change slightly.
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 21:32:26 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
You asked for it. I gave you the details. I know it was hard for
you to discover that someone on this NG was actually a real
physicist but that's the facts man.
(In his modesty, he forgot to mention is doctorate.)
My book is worth a dozen PHds...but I wouldn't accept one.
While trying to bluff your way into physics you would do well to
remember that the correct spelling is PhD.
...and yes...lots of experiments have been faked in order to
support Einstein. For instance most evidence against Newton was
derived from wrongly interpreted interferometry. Paul's latest is
HARPS. Q: Why do you think they they used moonlight? A: so they
could use the Doppler shift caused by its motion away from the
sun to fake a redshift.
As for faking, from the paper:
====
E"a"c"h" "s"p"e"c"t"r"u"m" "w"a"s" "c"o"r"r"e"c"t"e"d" "f"o"r"
r"a"d"i"a"l" "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "("s"e"e" "T"a"b"l"e" "1")"
"u"s"i"n"g" th"e" "J"P"L" "e"p"h"e"m"e"r"i"s" "t"o" "p"l"a"c"e"
"t"h"e"m" "i"n" "t"h"e" "l"a"b"o"r"a"t"o"r"y" "r"e"s"t"
"f"r"a"m"e" "("s"e"e" "M"o"l"a"r"o" "e"t" "a"l"." "2"0"1"3","
"f"o"r" "f"u"r"t"h"e"r" "d"e"t"a"i"l"s")"." "T"h"e"
"c"o"m"p"u"t"e"d" "r"a"d"i"a"l" "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y"
"a"c"c"o"u"n"t"s" "f"o"r" "t"h"e" "m"o"t"i"o"n"s" "o"f" "t"h"e"
"M"o"o"n" "w"i"t"h" "r"e"s"p"e"c"t" "t"o" "t"h"e"
"o"b"s"e"r"v"e"r" "a"n"d" "t"h"e" "S"u"n"," "a"n"d" "a"l"s"o"
"i"n"c"l"u"d"e"s" "a" "c"o"m"p"o"n"e"n"t" "o"f" "3"."2" "m"
s""1" "d"u"e" "t"o" "t"h"e" "r"o"t"a"t"i"o"n" "o"f" "t"h"e"
"M"o"o"n"," "s"i"n"c"e" "t"h"e" "s"u"n"l"i"g"h"t" "i"m"p"a"c"t"s"
"t"h"e" "r"e"c"e"d"i"n"g" "l"u"n"a"r" "h"e"m"i"s"p"h"e"r"e"
"b"e"f"o"r"e" "b"e"i"n"g" "r"e"f"l"e"c"t"e"d" "a"t" "a"n"
"a"n"g"l"e"
"o"f" "4"3"reR"
"a"t" "t"h"e" "t"i"m"e" "o"f" "t"h"e" "o"b"s"e"r"v"a"t"i"o"n"." "
====
So yes, they corrected for both orbital motion and for rotation of
the Moon.
Ahuh No!
They corrected assuming constant c.
Light reflects from a moving mirror (or moon) at c+/-2v.
So the experiment was very easy to fake.
So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is
done, and should e done.
You need a theoretical framework for that,
You need the correct theoretical framework.
Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be used
to derive a prediction.
(which may of course prove to be incorrect)
Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what is observed.
Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using 'Newton'.
(or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more)
Jan
and in -in that framework- you interpret the observations.
You don't throw in some extra unrelated and incompatible hypothesis.
Jan
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is
done, and should e done.
You need a theoretical framework for that,
You need the correct theoretical framework.
Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be used
to derive a prediction.
(which may of course prove to be incorrect)
Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what is
observed.
Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using 'Newton'.
(or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more)
According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate for constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s
By coincidence, the Newtonian blue shift in wavelength due to slowing,
just happens to be tyhe same 633m/s.
HenryWilson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is >>>>> done, and should e done.
You need a theoretical framework for that,
You need the correct theoretical framework.
Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be used
to derive a prediction.
(which may of course prove to be incorrect)
Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what is
observed.
Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using 'Newton'.
(or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more)
According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate for
constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s
If by "GR redshift" you two mean "gravitational redshift", it has
nothing to do with any constant speed. So you, "HenryWilson", have no clue.
By coincidence, the Newtonian blue shift in wavelength due to slowing,
just happens to be tyhe same 633m/s.
Newton's theories do not predict any redshift or blueshift due to
relative motion or gravitation. Newton simply does not discuss light in relation to motion or gravitation, and he was wrong about light on top
of it.
You can to some extent use Newtonian reasoning to explain gravitational redshift (BTDT for an exercise in the first semester of my Astrophysics studies when I did not know yet how to calculate it based on GR), but
that is only so because in special cases it is a good approximation of
GR. Which is actually the mark of a good new theory, in this case GR.
That Newton's theory of gravitation is wrong up to a factor of 2 when
the gravitational influences grow larger was demonstrated repeatedly in
the deflection of starlight passing by close to Sol, and even before
that, the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury without
finding the proposed planet, Vulcan, to explain it.
On 09/24/2026 04:22 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is >>>>>> done, and should e done.
You need a theoretical framework for that,
You need the correct theoretical framework.
Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be used >>>> to derive a prediction.
(which may of course prove to be incorrect)
Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what is >>>> observed.
Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using 'Newton'. >>>> (or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more)
According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate for
constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s
If by "GR redshift" you two mean "gravitational redshift", it has
nothing to do with any constant speed. So you, "HenryWilson", have no
clue.
By coincidence, the Newtonian blue shift in wavelength due to slowing,
just happens to be tyhe same 633m/s.
Newton's theories do not predict any redshift or blueshift due to
relative motion or gravitation. Newton simply does not discuss light in
relation to motion or gravitation, and he was wrong about light on top
of it.
You can to some extent use Newtonian reasoning to explain gravitational
redshift (BTDT for an exercise in the first semester of my Astrophysics
studies when I did not know yet how to calculate it based on GR), but
that is only so because in special cases it is a good approximation of
GR. Which is actually the mark of a good new theory, in this case GR.
That Newton's theory of gravitation is wrong up to a factor of 2 when
the gravitational influences grow larger was demonstrated repeatedly in
the deflection of starlight passing by close to Sol, and even before
that, the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury without
finding the proposed planet, Vulcan, to explain it.
That's of light's passage not the transit of bodies in their orbits,
which are determined by the source of the gravific influence
not its image, then that the mass of the bodies has been determined
in reverse from the behavior of the orbits, so that "Newtonian"
or "Einsteinian" accounts of the gravitic (or, gravific) are
ignorant any accounts after the "Galilean" which is ignorant
any account of spinning bodies their heft, as resistance to acceleration.
Then, the actual formulas that give the diffraction, are simply
re-written formulas with adding "a factor of 2", since otherwise
the previous sort of account could give "the correction" for various
reasons, that besides that it's "spurious", then is about lensing
and occlusion lensing due light's travel and the pure diffraction,
instead of the geodesy or orbifold.
I.e., one could just re-write the old formulas and add a "spurious
factor of 2" and it would be fudged/fuzzed about the same.
About light as entering rotational frames besides gravitating frames,
makes for a simple reason that mechanics gives for optics to give
that redshift bias/distortion is from accounts of the rotational
as much as the gravific.
The usual Galilean/Newtonian/Einsteinian of these is just ignorant
of rotating frames, rotating frames, and rotating frames.
Shame, forsooth, bother.
Den 23.09.2026 21:53, skrev Python:
reminder : https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Search/searchresult.html?sw=wilson
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Search/searchresult.html?sw=rabbidge
Thanks for the links!
I wasn't aware that Dirk's site still was up.
Some of Ralph's fumbles are hilarious!
Ralph proving that kinetic energy is not frame dependent: https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/KineticEnergyNOTFrameDependent.html
Ralph proving that kinetic energy is frame dependent: https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html
Einstein's theory is supported with a religious fanaticism and almost
solely by members of the jewish faith. https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotAntiSemeticBut.html
Einstein's version of relativity was never taken seriously outside of
the USA and GB. It is a western hoax https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AsFar.html
A pendulum would swing back and forth in a spaceship in orbit. https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotTrickQuestion.html
SR cannot cause anything physical, but Newtonian Mechanics can! https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SuicideBomber.html
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Respectibility.html :-D
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:44:19 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 23.09.2026 02:38, skrev HenryWilson:
The watch does not need ultra high accuracy. Its instantaneous readings
are subtracted from the emission times of four received signals to
produce four distances using constant c.
The speed of the signal from the SVs is not constant.
The signal passes through the ionosphere which is a plasma.
The speed of EM-waves in the L-band are slower in a plasma than it is in
vacuum, so there will be a delay of the signal when it passes through
the ionosphere. The delay will change with time. To compensate for this
there is a 'model' of the ionosphere in the receiver. Eight parameters
in this model describes the current delay in the ionosphere.
The monitoring stations continuously measure the properties of the
ionosphere and calculate the eight parameters and upload them to the
SVs, which in turn send them down to the receiver. The varying delay in
the ionosphere is the most serious source of error in the GPS, and the
precision would be very poor without this correction.
The received signals do not arrive simultaneously but as long as the
difference in the watch's time and that of the orbiting clocks is
accurately monitored, it can be easily corrected out. The main
requirement is that the arrival time DIFFERENCES are recorded
accurately and, for that, the watch's rate does not need to be highly
precise. Get it?
Your guesses are wrong.
The only data the receiver needs from each SV is the GPS-time when the
signal it is receiving NOW was sent.
The receiver is tracking the SVs continuously, so at any time it knows
when the signal it is receiving NOW was sent from the SV.
Of course, It is written in the signal.
But you missed my point. The signals from four clocks do not arrive simultaneously. The receiving clock only has to be suficiently accurate to measure those smal difference.
The receiver knows the precise orbit of each SV.
Aha! Actually not exactly. The clocks are not precisely where they are believed to be..
Orbit ephemerides are calculated on a constant c basis. any orbit eccentricity would result in a small error due to c+v.
(Nominal orbit + received corrections).
So when the receiver knows the GPS-time when the signal was sent, it
also knows the SV's position. So the receiver knows (x,y,z,t) for each
SV. With these data from four SVs the four unknown (x,y,z,t) of the
receiver can be found.
How the receiver at any time can know the _exact_ time (within very few
ns) when the signal was sent is a rather long story.
You can find the whole story here:
https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
If you really want to learn how the GPS work, I can help you.
But I don't think you want to learn. Or do you?
The point I am making is that the accuracy of the ground clock is not important. So all that bullshit about correcting for claimed time dilation and gravity is totally irrelevant. The main criterion is that all orbiting clocks are in absolute synch, or have known deviations. The GPS system
would work without any aspect of Einstein's silly theory.
Den 24.09.2026 23:36, skrev HenryWilson:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:44:19 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 23.09.2026 02:38, skrev HenryWilson:
The watch does not need ultra high accuracy. Its instantaneous readings >>>> are subtracted from the emission times of four received signals to
produce four distances using constant c.
Read this again:
The speed of the signal from the SVs is not constant.
The signal passes through the ionosphere which is a plasma.
The speed of EM-waves in the L-band are slower in a plasma than it is in >>> vacuum, so there will be a delay of the signal when it passes through
the ionosphere. The delay will change with time. To compensate for this
there is a 'model' of the ionosphere in the receiver. Eight parameters
in this model describes the current delay in the ionosphere.
The monitoring stations continuously measure the properties of the
ionosphere and calculate the eight parameters and upload them to the
SVs, which in turn send them down to the receiver. The varying delay in
the ionosphere is the most serious source of error in the GPS, and the
precision would be very poor without this correction.
The speed of an EM-wave in the L-band is NOT constant!
It is measured by the monitor stations and the delay is
corrected for in the receiver.
The received signals do not arrive simultaneously but as long as the
difference in the watch's time and that of the orbiting clocks is
accurately monitored, it can be easily corrected out. The main
requirement is that the arrival time DIFFERENCES are recorded
accurately and, for that, the watch's rate does not need to be highly
precise. Get it?
Your guesses are wrong.
The only data the receiver needs from each SV is the GPS-time when the
signal it is receiving NOW was sent.
Read this again:
The receiver is tracking the SVs continuously, so at any time it knows
when the signal it is receiving NOW was sent from the SV.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Of course, It is written in the signal.
But you missed my point. The signals from four clocks do not arrive
simultaneously. The receiving clock only has to be suficiently
accurate to
measure those smal difference.
Either you don't read what I write, or you have a serious reading comprehension problem.
At _any time_ the receiver knows the GPS-time of the SV when
the signal was sent.
That means that the receiver all the time simultaneously is
receiving the signal from 4+ SVs.
The receiver knows the precise orbit of each SV.
Aha! Actually not exactly. The clocks are not precisely where they are
believed to be..
Orbit ephemerides are calculated on a constant c basis. any orbit
eccentricity would result in a small error due to c+v.
Ralph, the GPS is very complicated and it is impossible
to _guess_ how it works. You are guessing horribly wrong!
The receiver knows the nominal orbit for all the SVs.
The monitor stations are tracking the SVs and know their
exact orbits. Ephemerides are uploaded to the SVs so that
each SV knows its own orbit. Each SV is downloading corrections
to its nominal orbit to the receiver.
** The receiver knows the precise orbit of each SV.**
That means that when the receiver knows the GPS-time when signal
was sent, it also knows the SV's position when the signal was sent.
So the receiver will get the information (xrec,yrec,zrec,trec) from each SV.
Since the speed of an SV is 3870 m/s, 3ns error in trec will only
give ~11.6 ++m error in the position of the SV, but trec must be precise
by other reasons. See below.
(Nominal orbit + received corrections).
So when the receiver knows the GPS-time when the signal was sent, it
also knows the SV's position. So the receiver knows (x,y,z,t) for each
SV. With these data from four SVs the four unknown (x,y,z,t) of the
receiver can be found.
Did you get it?
There are four unknowns to be determined in the receiver, (xb|u,yb|u,zb|u,tb|u). With four SVs, you get four equations to determine these four unknowns.
Solving the equations will give four distances to the SVs.
The distance will be (trec-tb|u)riac' where c' is the average speed
of radio signals in the L-band when it is corrected for the
ionospheric delay.
This correction may (will) be different for the four SVs.
If trec is 3 ns wrong, then the distance will be wrong by ~1m.
So to keep the precision of the position in the metre range,
the reported time from the SVs must be in sync with GPS-time
within very few ns.
Got it?
If the receiver didn't receive the signals from the four SVs
simultaneously, and the receiver is moving, you would get four
different (xb|u,yb|u,zb|u,tb|u) to determine, that's 16 unknowns.
Hard to do with four equations.
How the receiver at any time can know the _exact_ time (within very few
ns) when the signal was sent is a rather long story.
You can find the whole story here:
https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
If you really want to learn how the GPS work, I can help you.
But I don't think you want to learn. Or do you?
The point I am making is that the accuracy of the ground clock is not
important. So all that bullshit about correcting for claimed time
dilation
and gravity is totally irrelevant. The main criterion is that all
orbiting
clocks are in absolute synch, or have known deviations. The GPS system
would work without any aspect of Einstein's silly theory.
Well, you don't want to learn, but I will teach you anyway.
Your claim: "the accuracy of the ground clock is not important."
is plain wrong.
There are several "ground clocks", one in each monitor station.
These clocks are kept in sync with the master clock and GPS-time.
It is the monitor stations which are keeping the reported time
from the SVs in sync with GPS-time. If the ground clocks were
not synchronous, neither would the SV clocks be.
Your statement:
"The main criterion is that all orbiting clocks are in absolute synch"
is almost right. The reported times from the SVs are kept in sync with GPS-time. They are synchronous in the non-rotating ECI-frame.
Didn't you wonder how "all orbiting clocks are kept in absolute synch"?
Facts:
SI-clock = clock counting seconds as defined by SI.
The clocks in the SV's are SI-clocks adjusted down by
the factor (1-4.4647e-10).
These clocks have then the same rate as SI-clocks on the ground.
That's how Nature factually works and would have worked even
if Einstein was never born.
------
Let's see how the receiver at any time can know the _exact_
time (within very few ns) when the signal was sent from the SV.
The clock in the SV is called "SV clock time" t_SV.
This clock is normally not corrected while the SV is in service.
Since no clock is infinitely precise, t_SV may be several ++s
off sync. The GPS-system time is called t.
So to get the correct t, we must add a correction +ot_SV.
The monitor stations are reading the clocks in all the SVs, and
are measuring their offset from GPS-time, their rate error, and
the change in the rate error. These data are uploaded to the SVs
as a correction polynomial. This polynomial is downloaded to
the receiver together with t_SV, and the correction is made in
the receiver.
See: https://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf
From the Interface Control Document: https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
The SV will send the t_SV and the correction polynomial every
6 minutes. That means that the receiver will get the corrected
time t every 6. minutes.
But the receiver must at any time know the time t.
To explain how that is achieved, we must have a closer look
at the signal from the SV.
Each SV has a unique pseudo random code (PRN code). This
is 1023 bits long, and these bits are continuously sent
from the SV. The bits are sent with the frequency 1023 kbps,
which means that each PRN code lasts 1 ms.
The data bits are modulated on top of this continuous stream
of PRN code. The receiver gets the corrected time every
6 minutes, and during the 6 minutes the receiver counts
the PRN codes and add 1 ms to the time for each code.
Thus the receiver at any time knows the time t for 4+ SVs.
There are four unknowns to be determined in the receiver, (xb|u,yb|u,zb|u,tb|u). With four SVs, you get four equations to determine these four unknowns.
Solving the equations will give four distances to the SVs.
On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 22:28:14 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Ralph proving that kinetic energy is not frame dependent:
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/KineticEnergyNOTFrameDependent.html
Ralph proving that kinetic energy is frame dependent:
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html
No form of energy is frame dependent. What is wrongly referred to as
kinetic energy does not tell the full story. If you have disovered some
frame dependent kinetic energy, I look forward to your imminent invention
of perpetual motion.
Den 25.09.2026 11:43, skrev HenryWilson:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 22:28:14 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Ralph proving that kinetic energy is not frame dependent:
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ KineticEnergyNOTFrameDependent.html
Ralph proving that kinetic energy is frame dependent:
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html
quote:
| Here's the problem.
|
| P1->v-------J-------<-P2 |
| Jerry is positioned midway between two planets that are | approaching
each other at +/-v as measured by Jerry.
|
| Jerry calculates the total energy of the system as:
| 1/2Mv^2 + 1/2Mv^2 = Mv^2
|
| A friend on P1 contacts Jerry and argues that he is wrong.
| P1 is appoaching at 2v and the energy of the system is | therefore: 1/2M(2v)^2 or 2Mv^2.
You correctly calculated:
Kinetic energy of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2 Kinetic energy
of system in P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2
Well done!
some frame dependent kinetic energy, I look forward to your imminentNo form of energy is frame dependent. What is wrongly referred to as
kinetic energy does not tell the full story. If you have discovered
invention of perpetual motion.
And the inventor of the perpetuum mobile is Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Congratulation!
Den 24.09.2026 23:36, skrev HenryWilson:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:44:19 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The speed of the signal from the SVs is not constant.
The signal passes through the ionosphere which is a plasma.
The speed of EM-waves in the L-band are slower in a plasma than it is in >>> vacuum, so there will be a delay of the signal when it passes through
the ionosphere. The delay will change with time. To compensate for this
there is a 'model' of the ionosphere in the receiver. Eight parameters
in this model describes the current delay in the ionosphere.
The monitoring stations continuously measure the properties of the
ionosphere and calculate the eight parameters and upload them to the
SVs, which in turn send them down to the receiver. The varying delay in
the ionosphere is the most serious source of error in the GPS, and the
precision would be very poor without this correction.
The speed of an EM-wave in the L-band is NOT constant!
It is measured by the monitor stations and the delay is
corrected for in the receiver.
On 9/25/2026 11:22 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
There are four unknowns to be determined in the receiver,
(xb|u,yb|u,zb|u,tb|u). With four SVs, you get four equations to determine
these four unknowns.
Solving the equations will give four distances to the SVs.
Some idiot has asserted these distances
depend on the speed of the receiver, but
why would anyone treat the idiot seriously.
Some idiot has asserted these distances
depend on the speed of the receiver
Maciej,
Some idiot has asserted these distances
depend on the speed of the receiver
If by "some idiot" you mean special relativity,
please state the claim correctly.
SR does NOT say:
-a-a "The GPS receiver moves faster,
-a-a-a therefore its measured pseudoranges shrink."
HenryWilson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is >>>>> done, and should e done.
You need a theoretical framework for that,
You need the correct theoretical framework.
Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be
used to derive a prediction.
(which may of course prove to be incorrect)
Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what
is observed.
Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using 'Newton'.
(or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more)
According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate for
constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s
If by "GR redshift" you two mean "gravitational redshift", it has
nothing to do with any constant speed. So you, "HenryWilson", have no
clue.
By coincidence, the Newtonian blue shift in wavelength due to slowing,
just happens to be tyhe same 633m/s.
Newton's theories do not predict any redshift or blueshift due to
relative motion or gravitation. Newton simply does not discuss light in relation to motion or gravitation, and he was wrong about light on top
of it.
You can to some extent use Newtonian reasoning to explain gravitational redshift (BTDT for an exercise in the first semester of my Astrophysics studies when I did not know yet how to calculate it based on GR), but
that is only so because in special cases it is a good approximation of
GR. Which is actually the mark of a good new theory, in this case GR.
That Newton's theory of gravitation is wrong up to a factor of 2 when
the gravitational influences grow larger was demonstrated repeatedly in
the deflection of starlight passing by close to Sol, and even before
that, the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury without
finding the proposed planet, Vulcan, to explain it.
Den 24.09.2026 23:36, skrev HenryWilson:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:44:19 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 23.09.2026 02:38, skrev HenryWilson:
The watch does not need ultra high accuracy. Its instantaneous
readings are subtracted from the emission times of four received
signals to produce four distances using constant c.
Read this again:
The speed of the signal from the SVs is not constant.
The signal passes through the ionosphere which is a plasma.
The speed of EM-waves in the L-band are slower in a plasma than it is
in vacuum, so there will be a delay of the signal when it passes
through the ionosphere. The delay will change with time. To compensate
for this there is a 'model' of the ionosphere in the receiver. Eight
parameters in this model describes the current delay in the
ionosphere.
The monitoring stations continuously measure the properties of the
ionosphere and calculate the eight parameters and upload them to the
SVs, which in turn send them down to the receiver. The varying delay
in the ionosphere is the most serious source of error in the GPS, and
the precision would be very poor without this correction.
The speed of an EM-wave in the L-band is NOT constant!
It is measured by the monitor stations and the delay is corrected for in
the receiver.
The received signals do not arrive simultaneously but as long as the
difference in the watch's time and that of the orbiting clocks is
accurately monitored, it can be easily corrected out. The main
requirement is that the arrival time DIFFERENCES are recorded
accurately and, for that, the watch's rate does not need to be highly
precise. Get it?
Your guesses are wrong.
The only data the receiver needs from each SV is the GPS-time when the
signal it is receiving NOW was sent.
Read this again:
The receiver is tracking the SVs continuously, so at any time it knows
when the signal it is receiving NOW was sent from the SV.
Why is this so hard to understand?Why is it so had for you to understand that I do understand and am quite correct in stating that the inclusion of anything Einstein said into the
Of course, It is written in the signal.
But you missed my point. The signals from four clocks do not arrive
simultaneously. The receiving clock only has to be suficiently accurate
to measure those smal difference.
Either you don't read what I write, or you have a serious reading comprehension problem.
At _any time_ the receiver knows the GPS-time of the SV when the signal
was sent.
That means that the receiver all the time simultaneously is receiving
the signal from 4+ SVs.
The receiver knows the precise orbit of each SV.
Aha! Actually not exactly. The clocks are not precisely where they are
believed to be..
Orbit ephemerides are calculated on a constant c basis. any orbit
eccentricity would result in a small error due to c+v.
Ralph, the GPS is very complicated and it is impossible to _guess_ how
it works. You are guessing horribly wrong!
The receiver knows the nominal orbit for all the SVs.
The monitor stations are tracking the SVs and know their exact orbits. Ephemerides are uploaded to the SVs so that each SV knows its own orbit.
Each SV is downloading corrections to its nominal orbit to the receiver.
** The receiver knows the precise orbit of each SV.**
That means that when the receiver knows the GPS-time when signal was
sent, it also knows the SV's position when the signal was sent.
So the receiver will get the information (xrec,yrec,zrec,trec) from each SV.
Since the speed of an SV is 3870 m/s, 3ns error in trec will only give
~11.6 ++m error in the position of the SV, but trec must be precise by
other reasons. See below.
(Nominal orbit + received corrections).
So when the receiver knows the GPS-time when the signal was sent, it
also knows the SV's position. So the receiver knows (x,y,z,t) for each
SV. With these data from four SVs the four unknown (x,y,z,t) of the
receiver can be found.
Did you get it?
There are four unknowns to be determined in the receiver, (xb|u,yb|u,zb|u,tb|u).
With four SVs, you get four equations to determine these four unknowns. Solving the equations will give four distances to the SVs.
The distance will be (trec-tb|u)riac' where c' is the average speed of radio signals in the L-band when it is corrected for the ionospheric delay.
This correction may (will) be different for the four SVs.
If trec is 3 ns wrong, then the distance will be wrong by ~1m.
So to keep the precision of the position in the metre range,
the reported time from the SVs must be in sync with GPS-time within very
few ns.
Got it?
If the receiver didn't receive the signals from the four SVs
simultaneously, and the receiver is moving, you would get four different (xb|u,yb|u,zb|u,tb|u) to determine, that's 16 unknowns.
Hard to do with four equations.
How the receiver at any time can know the _exact_ time (within very
few ns) when the signal was sent is a rather long story.
You can find the whole story here:
https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
If you really want to learn how the GPS work, I can help you.
But I don't think you want to learn. Or do you?
The point I am making is that the accuracy of the ground clock is not
important. So all that bullshit about correcting for claimed time
dilation and gravity is totally irrelevant. The main criterion is that
all orbiting clocks are in absolute synch, or have known deviations.
The GPS system would work without any aspect of Einstein's silly
theory.
Well, you don't want to learn, but I will teach you anyway.
Your claim: "the accuracy of the ground clock is not important."
is plain wrong.
There are several "ground clocks", one in each monitor station.
These clocks are kept in sync with the master clock and GPS-time.
It is the monitor stations which are keeping the reported time from the
SVs in sync with GPS-time. If the ground clocks were not synchronous,
neither would the SV clocks be.
Your statement:
"The main criterion is that all orbiting clocks are in absolute synch"
is almost right. The reported times from the SVs are kept in sync with GPS-time. They are synchronous in the non-rotating ECI-frame.
Didn't you wonder how "all orbiting clocks are kept in absolute synch"?
Facts:
SI-clock = clock counting seconds as defined by SI.
The clocks in the SV's are SI-clocks adjusted down by the factor (1-4.4647e-10).
These clocks have then the same rate as SI-clocks on the ground.
That's how Nature factually works and would have worked even if Einstein
was never born.
------
Let's see how the receiver at any time can know the _exact_
time (within very few ns) when the signal was sent from the SV.
The clock in the SV is called "SV clock time" t_SV.
This clock is normally not corrected while the SV is in service.
Since no clock is infinitely precise, t_SV may be several ++s off sync.
The GPS-system time is called t.
So to get the correct t, we must add a correction +ot_SV.
The monitor stations are reading the clocks in all the SVs, and are
measuring their offset from GPS-time, their rate error, and the change
in the rate error. These data are uploaded to the SVs as a correction polynomial. This polynomial is downloaded to the receiver together with
t_SV, and the correction is made in the receiver.
See: https://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf
From the Interface Control Document: https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
The SV will send the t_SV and the correction polynomial every 6 minutes.
That means that the receiver will get the corrected time t every 6.
minutes.
But the receiver must at any time know the time t.
To explain how that is achieved, we must have a closer look at the
signal from the SV.
Each SV has a unique pseudo random code (PRN code). This is 1023 bits
long, and these bits are continuously sent from the SV. The bits are
sent with the frequency 1023 kbps,
which means that each PRN code lasts 1 ms.
The data bits are modulated on top of this continuous stream of PRN
code. The receiver gets the corrected time every 6 minutes, and during
the 6 minutes the receiver counts the PRN codes and add 1 ms to the time
for each code.
Thus the receiver at any time knows the time t for 4+ SVs.
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 01:22:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is >>>>>> done, and should e done.
You need a theoretical framework for that,
You need the correct theoretical framework.
Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be
used to derive a prediction.
(which may of course prove to be incorrect)
Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what
is observed.
Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using 'Newton'. >>>> (or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more)
According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate for
constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s
If by "GR redshift" you two mean "gravitational redshift", it has
nothing to do with any constant speed. So you, "HenryWilson", have no
clue.
It has everything to do with Einstein's denial of variable speed.
You preach relativity but know nothing about it.
Newton simply says light slow as it leaves the sun and loses KE.
Einstein accepted that light loses energy as it moves into weaker gravity
but because it was not allowed to slow, he had to concoct the idea that
light possesses a 'frequency' that decreases and so make h.nu smaller.
[crackpot fantasies]--
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 01:22:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is >>>>>> done, and should e done.
You need a theoretical framework for that,
You need the correct theoretical framework.
Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be
used to derive a prediction.
(which may of course prove to be incorrect)
Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what
is observed.
Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using 'Newton'. >>>> (or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more)
According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate for
constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s
If by "GR redshift" you two mean "gravitational redshift", it has
nothing to do with any constant speed. So you, "HenryWilson", have no
clue.
It has everything to do with Einstein's denial of variable speed.
You preach relativity but know nothing about it.
Newton simply says light slow as it leaves the sun and loses KE.
Einstein accepted that light loses energy as it moves into weaker gravity
but because it was not allowed to slow, he had to concoct the idea that
light possesses a 'frequency' that decreases and so make h.nu smaller.
[crackpot fantasies]--
HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 01:22:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is >>>>>>> done, and should e done.
You need a theoretical framework for that,
You need the correct theoretical framework.
Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be
used to derive a prediction.
(which may of course prove to be incorrect)
Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what >>>>> is observed.
Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using 'Newton'. >>>>> (or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more)
According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate for >>>> constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s
If by "GR redshift" you two mean "gravitational redshift", it has
nothing to do with any constant speed. So you, "HenryWilson", have no
clue.
It has everything to do with Einstein's denial of variable speed.
Einstein does not "deny variable speed". You have no idea what you are saying.
To begin with, you have to say the speed /of what/ you are talking about
for your statement to have a chance to make sense, let alone be correct.
You preach relativity but know nothing about it.
No, you are arguing ambiguously from your own staggering ignorance.
Newton simply says light slow as it leaves the sun and loses KE.
Newton wondered, but did not state anything, about light in that regard.
As I indicated, the Newtonian interpretation of light with regard to gravitation was proposed by other people. But it does not work with the deflection of light, and only approximately regarding gravitational
redshift:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#Approximate_Newtonian_description>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Newtonian_limit>
Einstein accepted that light loses energy as it moves into weaker gravity
He did not. That is not what general relativity says. Also, the term "weaker gravity" is pop-sci babble that does not make any sense.
Instead, the fact that less proper time elapses closer to a center of
mass, because the spacetime curvature is "stronger" there (for lack of a better term) than farther away from it, results in the fact that the frequency/wavelength of (monochrome) light that is emitted there is
measured to be smaller/larger farther away (and larger/smaller closer to
it).
The spacetime around a spherically-symmetric mass distribution with
total mass M can be described by the Schwarzschild metric (in natural
units and Schwarzschild coordinates),
ds-# = reAd-a-# = reA(1 reA 2mreor) dt-# + (1 reA 2mreor)rU+-| dr-# + r-# d+--#,
m = G Mreoc-#,
d+--# = d++-# + sin-#(++) d-a-#,
where d-a is the infinitesimal elapsed proper time interval.
At relative rest, dr = d+- = 0:
d-a-# = (1 reA 2mreor) dt-# rco d-a = reU(1 reA 2mreor) dt.
This can be analyzed either in terms of the frequency f = 1/T of a
periodic process or phenomenon with period T,
f(r) reY 1reod-a = (1reodt) 1reoreU(1 reA 2mreor) reY f(reR)reoreU(1 reA 2mreor),
where f(reR) would be the frequency at infinite distance from the center
of mass (radius), as dt would be the infinitesimal proper time interval
that elapses there; or wavelength
++(r) reY c d-a(r) = c dt reU(1 reA 2mreor) reY ++(reR) reU(1 reA 2mreor).
Comparing the frequencies at different finite radii rree > rreU yields
f(rree)reof(rreU) = reU(1 reA 2mreorreU)reoreU(1 reA 2mreorree) < 1.
So the frequency at rree is smaller than at rreU. The frequency of reddish light is smaller than that of bluish light:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum>
So light is measured redshifted at rree when it is emitted at rreU, and blueshifted at rreU when it is emitted at rree.
Similarly, comparing the wavelengths at those radii, respectively, yields
++(rree)reo++(rreU) = reU(1 reA 2mreorree)reoreU(1 reA 2mreorreU) > 1.
So the wavelength at rree is larger than at rreU. The wavelength of reddish light is larger than that of bluish light: Light is measured redshifted
at rree when it is emitted at rreU, and blueshifted at rreU when it is emitted
at rree.
We observe gravitational blueshift when terrestrial artificial
satellites above a certain orbital altitude, like GPS satellites, are
sending radio signals towards the surface of Terra, and we observe gravitational redshift when light is emitted in the vicinity of objects
with a large mass, like the star S2 that is orbiting the black hole
Sgr A* near the center of the Milky Way:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Astronomical_observations>
It is also how black holes -- which have been observed -- are black:
light emitted from just outside their outer event horizons is "gravitationally" redshifted so much as to become invisible (for humans)
and undetectable (indistinguishable from the CMB):
<https://youtu.be/vNaEBbFbvcY?si=d09zljfdLWeBK1sA>
All of this is observed /precisely/ as GR predicts it, NOT as a
Newtonian interpretation would predict it.
[Note that "gravitional redshift/blueshift" is just a convenient
misnomer. The correct explanation for this phenomenon is NOT
gravitation, but the curvature of spacetime. Gravitation is another consequence of that curvature, but otherwise _unrelated_ to
"gravitational" redshift.]
but because it was not allowed to slow, he had to concoct the idea that
light possesses a 'frequency' that decreases and so make h.nu smaller.
Light is experimentally confirmed to be describable as an
electromagnetic wave, and like every wave it has a frequency and a wavelength:
<https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/16-2-mathematics-of-waves>
Newton's corpuscular theory was falsified by the fact that light slows
down in a medium, measured by Foucault in 1850. The wave theory of
light was confirmed, and the corpuscular theory falsified, by the interference pattern in Young's double-slit experiment. Maxwell
postulated light as an electromagnetic wave in 1864. Hertz confirmed electromagnetic waves experimentally in 1888. Marconi used that in 1894
to invent wireless telegraphy. Based on that, Reginald Fessenden and
others realized public radio transmissions by 1920. After World War II terrestrial television was invented, and so on, until today's wireless networks and satellite communication.
See also:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guglielmo_Marconi> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television>
You are not just 110 years, but 176 years (!) behind current knowledge.
[crackpot fantasies]
On 09/26/2026 10:33 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 01:22:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is >>>>>>> done, and should e done.
You need a theoretical framework for that,
You need the correct theoretical framework.
Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be >>>>> used to derive a prediction.
(which may of course prove to be incorrect)
Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what >>>>> is observed.
Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using 'Newton'. >>>>> (or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more)
According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate for >>>> constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s
If by "GR redshift" you two mean "gravitational redshift", it has
nothing to do with any constant speed. So you, "HenryWilson", have no >>> clue.
It has everything to do with Einstein's denial of variable speed.
Einstein does not "deny variable speed". You have no idea what you are saying.
To begin with, you have to say the speed /of what/ you are talking about for your statement to have a chance to make sense, let alone be correct.
You preach relativity but know nothing about it.
No, you are arguing ambiguously from your own staggering ignorance.
Newton simply says light slow as it leaves the sun and loses KE.
Newton wondered, but did not state anything, about light in that regard.
As I indicated, the Newtonian interpretation of light with regard to gravitation was proposed by other people. But it does not work with the deflection of light, and only approximately regarding gravitational redshift:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#Approximate_Newtonian_description>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Newtonian_limit>
Einstein accepted that light loses energy as it moves into weaker gravity
He did not. That is not what general relativity says. Also, the term "weaker gravity" is pop-sci babble that does not make any sense.
Instead, the fact that less proper time elapses closer to a center of
mass, because the spacetime curvature is "stronger" there (for lack of a better term) than farther away from it, results in the fact that the frequency/wavelength of (monochrome) light that is emitted there is measured to be smaller/larger farther away (and larger/smaller closer to it).
The spacetime around a spherically-symmetric mass distribution with
total mass M can be described by the Schwarzschild metric (in natural
units and Schwarzschild coordinates),
ds-# = reAd-a-# = reA(1 reA 2mreor) dt-# + (1 reA 2mreor)rU+-| dr-# + r-# d+--#,
m = G Mreoc-#,
d+--# = d++-# + sin-#(++) d-a-#,
where d-a is the infinitesimal elapsed proper time interval.
At relative rest, dr = d+- = 0:
d-a-# = (1 reA 2mreor) dt-# rco d-a = reU(1 reA 2mreor) dt.
This can be analyzed either in terms of the frequency f = 1/T of a
periodic process or phenomenon with period T,
f(r) reY 1reod-a = (1reodt) 1reoreU(1 reA 2mreor) reY f(reR)reoreU(1 reA 2mreor),
where f(reR) would be the frequency at infinite distance from the center
of mass (radius), as dt would be the infinitesimal proper time interval that elapses there; or wavelength
++(r) reY c d-a(r) = c dt reU(1 reA 2mreor) reY ++(reR) reU(1 reA 2mreor).
Comparing the frequencies at different finite radii rree > rreU yields
f(rree)reof(rreU) = reU(1 reA 2mreorreU)reoreU(1 reA 2mreorree) < 1.
So the frequency at rree is smaller than at rreU. The frequency of reddish light is smaller than that of bluish light:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum>
So light is measured redshifted at rree when it is emitted at rreU, and blueshifted at rreU when it is emitted at rree.
Similarly, comparing the wavelengths at those radii, respectively, yields
++(rree)reo++(rreU) = reU(1 reA 2mreorree)reoreU(1 reA 2mreorreU) > 1.
So the wavelength at rree is larger than at rreU. The wavelength of reddish
light is larger than that of bluish light: Light is measured redshifted
at rree when it is emitted at rreU, and blueshifted at rreU when it is emitted
at rree.
We observe gravitational blueshift when terrestrial artificial
satellites above a certain orbital altitude, like GPS satellites, are sending radio signals towards the surface of Terra, and we observe gravitational redshift when light is emitted in the vicinity of objects with a large mass, like the star S2 that is orbiting the black hole
Sgr A* near the center of the Milky Way:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Astronomical_observations>
It is also how black holes -- which have been observed -- are black:
light emitted from just outside their outer event horizons is "gravitationally" redshifted so much as to become invisible (for humans) and undetectable (indistinguishable from the CMB):
<https://youtu.be/vNaEBbFbvcY?si=d09zljfdLWeBK1sA>
All of this is observed /precisely/ as GR predicts it, NOT as a
Newtonian interpretation would predict it.
[Note that "gravitional redshift/blueshift" is just a convenient
misnomer. The correct explanation for this phenomenon is NOT
gravitation, but the curvature of spacetime. Gravitation is another consequence of that curvature, but otherwise _unrelated_ to
"gravitational" redshift.]
but because it was not allowed to slow, he had to concoct the idea that
light possesses a 'frequency' that decreases and so make h.nu smaller.
Light is experimentally confirmed to be describable as an
electromagnetic wave, and like every wave it has a frequency and a wavelength:
<https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/16-2-mathematics-of-waves>
Newton's corpuscular theory was falsified by the fact that light slows
down in a medium, measured by Foucault in 1850. The wave theory of
light was confirmed, and the corpuscular theory falsified, by the interference pattern in Young's double-slit experiment. Maxwell
postulated light as an electromagnetic wave in 1864. Hertz confirmed electromagnetic waves experimentally in 1888. Marconi used that in 1894
to invent wireless telegraphy. Based on that, Reginald Fessenden and others realized public radio transmissions by 1920. After World War II terrestrial television was invented, and so on, until today's wireless networks and satellite communication.
See also:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guglielmo_Marconi> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television>
You are not just 110 years, but 176 years (!) behind current knowledge.
[crackpot fantasies]
Radio is experimentally confirmed to be electromagnetic radiation
because it interacts with the electrical and magnetic fields.
Light is experimentally confirmed to _not_ interact with the electrical
and magnetic fields, though of course there are many junctions due
structures the opto-electronic and so on, similarly for heat radiation
the thermionic and plain incandescent.
So, there are a variety of kinds of _energy_ and _radiation_. Then,
the "electromagnetic spectrum" is just a chance sort of occurrence
usually given to the quantum theory where frequency and wavelength
make to define, given a definition of a "quantum" or "particle" of
energy, that that's given how much energy it is.
So, light and radio their propagation equations as forms of radiation
are much alike, yet not completely, since light is alike "pure
diffraction" and making for things like "Arago/Poisson spot",
while, radio does not. Furthermore, light's "signal" as "image"
is due decoherence of light, while radio's is the opposite.
This is well known as that two people in visual range can see each other uninterferedly, while if they attempt to radio at the same time
that occurs interferedly, just like talking over each other.
The bandwidth multiplexing is just a complicated coordinated
usually temperature-compensated phase-loop-locked protocol,
readily ruined by random electromagnetic noise, yet never light.
Then, heat radiation under the infra-red, and Roentgen or X-rays
above the ultra-violet, these are also different forms of radiation,
with their junctions and their accounts of propagation simply as
alike rays in waves, again, not-so-much "electromagnetic" at all.
So, energy in the entelechy, and radiation (rays) and their accounts
as waves as being "geometrical", then have that the "optical" and
its accounts of "aberration" (or "illusion") belong to the properly "optical".
Rutherford is a great theorist and theoretician.
O.W. Richardson gives three different accounts of the infinitesimal
analysis about energy and radiation and resultingly the changes,
not just one.
The Newtonian can be retro-fitted with a "spurious factor of 2"
by common treatments and approaches like "the path integral's",
it's rather simple.
For "space-time" to "curve" and thus "contain" things, the "things"
define the "curve", so, that's either a constant violation of energy everywhere doing work for free, or, it isn't (and, it doesn't).
Den 23.09.2026 03:07, skrev HenryWilson:
My book is worth a dozen PHds...but I wouldn't accept one.
Does that mean that you bluffed when you pretended to be a Doctor of
Science? :-D
I cannot recall ever doing that.
That's a plane lie!
From February 2008 to February 2009 you called yourself
"Dr. Henri Wilson" and you signed your posts with "Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)"
From April 2009 to June 2012 you called yourself "Henry Wilson, DSc"
In 2016 you called yourself HGWilson, DSc.
Since you reappeared in 2026 you call yourself "HenryWilson"
Don't pretend that you do not remember that you ten years ago claimed to
be a "DSc".
And what can DSc mean if not "Doctor of Science"?
But thanks for confirming that you were bluffing.
On Sat, 26 Sep 2026 10:48:48 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 25.09.2026 11:43, skrev HenryWilson:KineticEnergyNOTFrameDependent.html
On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 22:28:14 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Ralph proving that kinetic energy is not frame dependent:
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/
Ralph proving that kinetic energy is frame dependent:
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html
quote:
| Here's the problem.
|
| P1->v-------J-------<-P2 |
| Jerry is positioned midway between two planets that are approaching
| each other at +/-v as measured by Jerry.
|
| Jerry calculates the total energy of the system as:
| 1/2Mv^2 + 1/2Mv^2 = Mv^2
Paul, have you been consuming too much of that stuff again? What you
describe is not the energy of a system. It is the KE of a single object of mass 2M.
To discuss system KE you have to include how it originated and how
momentum is conserved in the process. I explained this years ago.
|
| A friend on P1 contacts Jerry and argues that he is wrong.
| P1 is appoaching at 2v and the energy of the system is therefore:
| 1/2M(2v)^2 or 2Mv^2.
You correctly calculated:
Kinetic energy of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2
Kinetic energy of system in P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2
Well done!
Being a radio engineer, did not learn much Physics.
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 23:22:26 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 24.09.2026 23:36, skrev HenryWilson:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:44:19 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 23.09.2026 02:38, skrev HenryWilson:
The watch does not need ultra high accuracy. Its instantaneous
readings are subtracted from the emission times of four received
signals to produce four distances using constant c.
Read this again:
The speed of the signal from the SVs is not constant.
The signal passes through the ionosphere which is a plasma.
The speed of EM-waves in the L-band are slower in a plasma than it is
in vacuum, so there will be a delay of the signal when it passes
through the ionosphere. The delay will change with time. To compensate >>>> for this there is a 'model' of the ionosphere in the receiver. Eight
parameters in this model describes the current delay in the
ionosphere.
The monitoring stations continuously measure the properties of the
ionosphere and calculate the eight parameters and upload them to the
SVs, which in turn send them down to the receiver. The varying delay
in the ionosphere is the most serious source of error in the GPS, and
the precision would be very poor without this correction.
The speed of an EM-wave in the L-band is NOT constant!
It is measured by the monitor stations and the delay is corrected for in
the receiver.
That's a different matter...although it is probably a neat way to
compensate for c+v without telling anyone.
The received signals do not arrive simultaneously but as long as the >>>>> difference in the watch's time and that of the orbiting clocks is
accurately monitored, it can be easily corrected out. The main
requirement is that the arrival time DIFFERENCES are recorded
accurately and, for that, the watch's rate does not need to be highly >>>>> precise. Get it?
Your guesses are wrong.
The only data the receiver needs from each SV is the GPS-time when the >>>> signal it is receiving NOW was sent.
Read this again:
The receiver is tracking the SVs continuously, so at any time it knows >>>> when the signal it is receiving NOW was sent from the SV.
What do you mean by 'tracking? It doesn't 'track' the clock. The signal emission time is written into the signal..and the receiving clock needs to
be accurate to only about e-9, which crystal oscillators do easily.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Why is it so had for you to understand that I do understand and am quite correct in stating that the inclusion of anything Einstein said into the
GPS system is totally unnecesary
Of course, It is written in the signal.
But you missed my point. The signals from four clocks do not arrive
simultaneously. The receiving clock only has to be suficiently accurate
to measure those smal difference.
Either you don't read what I write, or you have a serious reading
comprehension problem.
At _any time_ the receiver knows the GPS-time of the SV when the signal
was sent.
That means that the receiver all the time simultaneously is receiving
the signal from 4+ SVs.
The receiver knows the precise orbit of each SV.
Aha! Actually not exactly. The clocks are not precisely where they are
believed to be..
Orbit ephemerides are calculated on a constant c basis. any orbit
eccentricity would result in a small error due to c+v.
Ralph, the GPS is very complicated and it is impossible to _guess_ how
it works. You are guessing horribly wrong!
The constant c error is correct out by the application of 'relativistic corrections'.
The receiver knows the nominal orbit for all the SVs.
It knows where the SV is when it sent the signal, because its position can
be determined from that time. Not the estimated time based on the ground clock's reading. That does not have to be excessively accurate. What does have to be precisely known is the relationship between the readings of all the SVs at any absolute instant.
The monitor stations are tracking the SVs and know their exact orbits.
Ephemerides are uploaded to the SVs so that each SV knows its own orbit.
Each SV is downloading corrections to its nominal orbit to the receiver.
** The receiver knows the precise orbit of each SV.**
It doesn't 'know it'. The time stamp on the arriving signal tells the
ground clock where the SV was, relative to the Earth's coordinates. By subtracting the latter from the former the clock can calculate it distance from four clocks and calculate where it is. Again, the main point is, the actual SV clock rate doesn't matter one iota. Including the
'relativivistic correction' is nothing but yet another devious ploy to
make Einstein's theory appear to work.
That means that when the receiver knows the GPS-time when signal was
sent, it also knows the SV's position when the signal was sent.
So the receiver will get the information (xrec,yrec,zrec,trec) from each SV. >>
Since the speed of an SV is 3870 m/s, 3ns error in trec will only give
~11.6 ++m error in the position of the SV, but trec must be precise by
other reasons. See below.
(Nominal orbit + received corrections).
So when the receiver knows the GPS-time when the signal was sent, it
also knows the SV's position. So the receiver knows (x,y,z,t) for each >>>> SV. With these data from four SVs the four unknown (x,y,z,t) of the
receiver can be found.
Did you get it?
There are four unknowns to be determined in the receiver, (xb|u,yb|u,zb|u,tb|u).
With four SVs, you get four equations to determine these four unknowns.
Solving the equations will give four distances to the SVs.
The distance will be (trec-tb|u)riac' where c' is the average speed of radio >> signals in the L-band when it is corrected for the ionospheric delay.
This correction may (will) be different for the four SVs.
If trec is 3 ns wrong, then the distance will be wrong by ~1m.
So to keep the precision of the position in the metre range,
the reported time from the SVs must be in sync with GPS-time within very
few ns.
Got it?
Of course. That's how they maintain absolute synch between all SVs, which
is the fundamental requirement. .but my GPS golf wristwatch only has to be roughly accurate because its reading cancels out in the calculations. It locates with accuracy of about a half metre.
If the receiver didn't receive the signals from the four SVs
simultaneously, and the receiver is moving, you would get four different
(xb|u,yb|u,zb|u,tb|u) to determine, that's 16 unknowns.
Hard to do with four equations.
How the receiver at any time can know the _exact_ time (within very
few ns) when the signal was sent is a rather long story.
You can find the whole story here:
https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
If you really want to learn how the GPS work, I can help you.
But I don't think you want to learn. Or do you?
The point I am making is that the accuracy of the ground clock is not
important. So all that bullshit about correcting for claimed time
dilation and gravity is totally irrelevant. The main criterion is that
all orbiting clocks are in absolute synch, or have known deviations.
The GPS system would work without any aspect of Einstein's silly
theory.
Well, you don't want to learn, but I will teach you anyway.
Your claim: "the accuracy of the ground clock is not important."
is plain wrong.
There are several "ground clocks", one in each monitor station.
These clocks are kept in sync with the master clock and GPS-time.
It is the monitor stations which are keeping the reported time from the
SVs in sync with GPS-time. If the ground clocks were not synchronous,
neither would the SV clocks be.
Your statement:
"The main criterion is that all orbiting clocks are in absolute synch"
is almost right. The reported times from the SVs are kept in sync with
GPS-time. They are synchronous in the non-rotating ECI-frame.
Didn't you wonder how "all orbiting clocks are kept in absolute synch"?
I did . I particularly noticed that all signalling is assumed to occur at constant speed.
That's how I discovered why the relativistic corrections
are necessary. They compensate for that wrong assumption. As pointed out
in my book (which every physics student should read), we can live with a constant c universe, along with its incredibly complicated 'relativistic corrections' or a straightforward, easy to understand, variable light
speed universe. Only an idiot would chose the former.
Facts:
SI-clock = clock counting seconds as defined by SI.
The clocks in the SV's are SI-clocks adjusted down by the factor
(1-4.4647e-10).
These clocks have then the same rate as SI-clocks on the ground.
That's how Nature factually works and would have worked even if Einstein
was never born.
------
Let's see how the receiver at any time can know the _exact_
time (within very few ns) when the signal was sent from the SV.
The clock in the SV is called "SV clock time" t_SV.
This clock is normally not corrected while the SV is in service.
Since no clock is infinitely precise, t_SV may be several ++s off sync.
The GPS-system time is called t.
So to get the correct t, we must add a correction +ot_SV.
The monitor stations are reading the clocks in all the SVs, and are
measuring their offset from GPS-time, their rate error, and the change
in the rate error. These data are uploaded to the SVs as a correction
polynomial. This polynomial is downloaded to the receiver together with
t_SV, and the correction is made in the receiver.
See: https://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf
From the Interface Control Document:
https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
The SV will send the t_SV and the correction polynomial every 6 minutes.
That means that the receiver will get the corrected time t every 6.
minutes.
But the receiver must at any time know the time t.
To explain how that is achieved, we must have a closer look at the
signal from the SV.
Each SV has a unique pseudo random code (PRN code). This is 1023 bits
long, and these bits are continuously sent from the SV. The bits are
sent with the frequency 1023 kbps,
which means that each PRN code lasts 1 ms.
The data bits are modulated on top of this continuous stream of PRN
code. The receiver gets the corrected time every 6 minutes, and during
the 6 minutes the receiver counts the PRN codes and add 1 ms to the time
for each code.
Thus the receiver at any time knows the time t for 4+ SVs.
HenryWilson wrote:work can be
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 01:22:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
used to derive a prediction.
(which may of course prove to be incorrect)
Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what >>>>> is observed.
Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using
'Newton'.
(or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more)
According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate
for constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s
If by "GR redshift" you two mean "gravitational redshift", it has
nothing to do with any constant speed. So you, "HenryWilson", have no
clue.
It has everything to do with Einstein's denial of variable speed.
Einstein does not "deny variable speed". You have no idea what you are saying.
To begin with, you have to say the speed /of what/ you are talking aboutGravitational_lens#Approximate_Newtonian_description>
for your statement to have a chance to make sense, let alone be correct.
You preach relativity but know nothing about it.
No, you are arguing ambiguously from your own staggering ignorance.
Newton simply says light slow as it leaves the sun and loses KE.
Newton wondered, but did not state anything, about light in that regard.
As I indicated, the Newtonian interpretation of light with regard to gravitation was proposed by other people. But it does not work with the deflection of light, and only approximately regarding gravitational
redshift:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Newtonian_limit>
Einstein accepted that light loses energy as it moves into weaker
gravity
He did not. That is not what general relativity says. Also, the term "weaker gravity" is pop-sci babble that does not make any sense.
Instead, the fact that less proper time elapses closer to a center of
mass, because the spacetime curvature is "stronger" there (for lack of a better term) than farther away from it, results in the fact that the frequency/wavelength of (monochrome) light that is emitted there is
measured to be smaller/larger farther away (and larger/smaller closer to
it).
The spacetime around a spherically-symmetric mass distribution with
total mass M can be described by the Schwarzschild metric (in natural
units and Schwarzschild coordinates),
ds-# = reAd-a-# = reA(1 reA 2mreor) dt-# + (1 reA 2mreor)rU+-| dr-# + r-# d+--#, m = G Mreoc-#,
d+--# = d++-# + sin-#(++) d-a-#,
where d-a is the infinitesimal elapsed proper time interval.
At relative rest, dr = d+- = 0:
d-a-# = (1 reA 2mreor) dt-# rco d-a = reU(1 reA 2mreor) dt.
This can be analyzed either in terms of the frequency f = 1/T of a
periodic process or phenomenon with period T,
f(r) reY 1reod-a = (1reodt) 1reoreU(1 reA 2mreor) reY f(reR)reoreU(1 reA 2mreor),
where f(reR) would be the frequency at infinite distance from the center
of mass (radius), as dt would be the infinitesimal proper time interval
that elapses there; or wavelength
++(r) reY c d-a(r) = c dt reU(1 reA 2mreor) reY ++(reR) reU(1 reA 2mreor).
Comparing the frequencies at different finite radii rree > rreU yields
f(rree)reof(rreU) = reU(1 reA 2mreorreU)reoreU(1 reA 2mreorree) < 1.
So the frequency at rree is smaller than at rreU. The frequency of reddish light is smaller than that of bluish light:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum>Gravitational_redshift#Astronomical_observations>
So light is measured redshifted at rree when it is emitted at rreU, and blueshifted at rreU when it is emitted at rree.
Similarly, comparing the wavelengths at those radii, respectively,
yields
++(rree)reo++(rreU) = reU(1 reA 2mreorree)reoreU(1 reA 2mreorreU) > 1.
So the wavelength at rree is larger than at rreU. The wavelength of reddish light is larger than that of bluish light: Light is measured redshifted
at rree when it is emitted at rreU, and blueshifted at rreU when it is emitted
at rree.
We observe gravitational blueshift when terrestrial artificial
satellites above a certain orbital altitude, like GPS satellites, are
sending radio signals towards the surface of Terra, and we observe gravitational redshift when light is emitted in the vicinity of objects
with a large mass, like the star S2 that is orbiting the black hole
Sgr-aA* near the center of the Milky Way:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
It is also how black holes -- which have been observed -- are black:mathematics-of-waves>
light emitted from just outside their outer event horizons is "gravitationally" redshifted so much as to become invisible (for humans)
and undetectable (indistinguishable from the CMB):
<https://youtu.be/vNaEBbFbvcY?si=d09zljfdLWeBK1sA>
All of this is observed /precisely/ as GR predicts it, NOT as a
Newtonian interpretation would predict it.
[Note that "gravitional redshift/blueshift" is just a convenient
misnomer. The correct explanation for this phenomenon is NOT
gravitation, but the curvature of spacetime. Gravitation is another consequence of that curvature, but otherwise _unrelated_ to
"gravitational" redshift.]
but because it was not allowed to slow, he had to concoct the idea that
light possesses a 'frequency' that decreases and so make h.nu smaller.
Light is experimentally confirmed to be describable as an
electromagnetic wave, and like every wave it has a frequency and a wavelength:
<https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/16-2-
Newton's corpuscular theory was falsified by the fact that light slows
down in a medium, measured by Foucault in 1850. The wave theory of
light was confirmed, and the corpuscular theory falsified, by the interference pattern in Young's double-slit experiment. Maxwell
postulated light as an electromagnetic wave in 1864. Hertz confirmed electromagnetic waves experimentally in 1888. Marconi used that in 1894
to invent wireless telegraphy. Based on that, Reginald Fessenden and
others realized public radio transmissions by 1920. After World War II terrestrial television was invented, and so on, until today's wireless networks and satellite communication.
See also:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guglielmo_Marconi> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television>
You are not just 110 years, but 176 years (!) behind current knowledge.
On 09/26/2026 10:33 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:Radio is experimentally confirmed to be electromagnetic radiation
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 01:22:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories >>>>>>>> is done, and should e done.
You need a theoretical framework for that,
You need the correct theoretical framework.
Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be >>>>>> used to derive a prediction.
(which may of course prove to be incorrect)
Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with
what is observed.
Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using
'Newton'.
(or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more)
According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate
for constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s
If by "GR redshift" you two mean "gravitational redshift", it has
nothing to do with any constant speed. So you, "HenryWilson", have
no clue.
It has everything to do with Einstein's denial of variable speed.
Einstein does not "deny variable speed". You have no idea what you are
saying.
To begin with, you have to say the speed /of what/ you are talking
about for your statement to have a chance to make sense, let alone be
correct.
You preach relativity but know nothing about it.
No, you are arguing ambiguously from your own staggering ignorance.
Newton simply says light slow as it leaves the sun and loses KE.
Newton wondered, but did not state anything, about light in that
regard.
As I indicated, the Newtonian interpretation of light with regard to
gravitation was proposed by other people. But it does not work with
the deflection of light, and only approximately regarding gravitational
redshift:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Gravitational_lens#Approximate_Newtonian_description>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Newtonian_limit>
Einstein accepted that light loses energy as it moves into weaker
gravity
He did not. That is not what general relativity says. Also, the term
"weaker gravity" is pop-sci babble that does not make any sense.
Instead, the fact that less proper time elapses closer to a center of
mass, because the spacetime curvature is "stronger" there (for lack of
a better term) than farther away from it, results in the fact that the
frequency/wavelength of (monochrome) light that is emitted there is
measured to be smaller/larger farther away (and larger/smaller closer
to it).
The spacetime around a spherically-symmetric mass distribution with
total mass M can be described by the Schwarzschild metric (in natural
units and Schwarzschild coordinates),
ds-# = reAd-a-# = reA(1 reA 2mreor) dt-# + (1 reA 2mreor)rU+-| dr-# + r-# d+--#, m = G
Mreoc-#,
d+--# = d++-# + sin-#(++) d-a-#,
where d-a is the infinitesimal elapsed proper time interval.
At relative rest, dr = d+- = 0:
d-a-# = (1 reA 2mreor) dt-# rco d-a = reU(1 reA 2mreor) dt.
This can be analyzed either in terms of the frequency f = 1/T of a
periodic process or phenomenon with period T,
f(r) reY 1reod-a = (1reodt) 1reoreU(1 reA 2mreor) reY f(reR)reoreU(1 reA 2mreor),
where f(reR) would be the frequency at infinite distance from the center
of mass (radius), as dt would be the infinitesimal proper time interval
that elapses there; or wavelength
++(r) reY c d-a(r) = c dt reU(1 reA 2mreor) reY ++(reR) reU(1 reA 2mreor).
Comparing the frequencies at different finite radii rree > rreU yields
f(rree)reof(rreU) = reU(1 reA 2mreorreU)reoreU(1 reA 2mreorree) < 1.
So the frequency at rree is smaller than at rreU. The frequency of reddish >> light is smaller than that of bluish light:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum>
So light is measured redshifted at rree when it is emitted at rreU, and
blueshifted at rreU when it is emitted at rree.
Similarly, comparing the wavelengths at those radii, respectively,
yields
++(rree)reo++(rreU) = reU(1 reA 2mreorree)reoreU(1 reA 2mreorreU) > 1.
So the wavelength at rree is larger than at rreU. The wavelength of
reddish light is larger than that of bluish light: Light is measured
redshifted at rree when it is emitted at rreU, and blueshifted at rreU when >> it is emitted at rree.
We observe gravitational blueshift when terrestrial artificial
satellites above a certain orbital altitude, like GPS satellites, are
sending radio signals towards the surface of Terra, and we observe
gravitational redshift when light is emitted in the vicinity of objects
with a large mass, like the star S2 that is orbiting the black hole Sgr
A* near the center of the Milky Way:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Gravitational_redshift#Astronomical_observations>
It is also how black holes -- which have been observed -- are black:
light emitted from just outside their outer event horizons is
"gravitationally" redshifted so much as to become invisible (for
humans)
and undetectable (indistinguishable from the CMB):
<https://youtu.be/vNaEBbFbvcY?si=d09zljfdLWeBK1sA>
All of this is observed /precisely/ as GR predicts it, NOT as a
Newtonian interpretation would predict it.
[Note that "gravitional redshift/blueshift" is just a convenient
misnomer. The correct explanation for this phenomenon is NOT
gravitation, but the curvature of spacetime. Gravitation is another
consequence of that curvature, but otherwise _unrelated_ to
"gravitational" redshift.]
but because it was not allowed to slow, he had to concoct the idea
that light possesses a 'frequency' that decreases and so make h.nu
smaller.
Light is experimentally confirmed to be describable as an
electromagnetic wave, and like every wave it has a frequency and a
wavelength:
<https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/16-2- mathematics-of-waves>
Newton's corpuscular theory was falsified by the fact that light slows
down in a medium, measured by Foucault in 1850. The wave theory of
light was confirmed, and the corpuscular theory falsified, by the
interference pattern in Young's double-slit experiment. Maxwell
postulated light as an electromagnetic wave in 1864. Hertz confirmed
electromagnetic waves experimentally in 1888. Marconi used that in
1894 to invent wireless telegraphy. Based on that, Reginald Fessenden
and others realized public radio transmissions by 1920. After World
War II terrestrial television was invented, and so on, until today's
wireless networks and satellite communication.
See also:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guglielmo_Marconi>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television>
You are not just 110 years, but 176 years (!) behind current knowledge.
[crackpot fantasies]
because it interacts with the electrical and magnetic fields.
Light is experimentally confirmed to _not_ interact with the electrical
and magnetic fields, though of course there are many junctions due
structures the opto-electronic and so on, similarly for heat radiation
the thermionic and plain incandescent.
So, there are a variety of kinds of _energy_ and _radiation_. Then,
the "electromagnetic spectrum" is just a chance sort of occurrence
usually given to the quantum theory where frequency and wavelength make
to define, given a definition of a "quantum" or "particle" of energy,
that that's given how much energy it is.
So, light and radio their propagation equations as forms of radiation
are much alike, yet not completely, since light is alike "pure
diffraction" and making for things like "Arago/Poisson spot",
while, radio does not. Furthermore, light's "signal" as "image"
is due decoherence of light, while radio's is the opposite.
This is well known as that two people in visual range can see each other uninterferedly, while if they attempt to radio at the same time that
occurs interferedly, just like talking over each other.
The bandwidth multiplexing is just a complicated coordinated usually temperature-compensated phase-loop-locked protocol,
readily ruined by random electromagnetic noise, yet never light.
Then, heat radiation under the infra-red, and Roentgen or X-rays above
the ultra-violet, these are also different forms of radiation, with
their junctions and their accounts of propagation simply as alike rays
in waves, again, not-so-much "electromagnetic" at all.
So, energy in the entelechy, and radiation (rays) and their accounts as
waves as being "geometrical", then have that the "optical" and its
accounts of "aberration" (or "illusion") belong to the properly
"optical".
Rutherford is a great theorist and theoretician.
O.W. Richardson gives three different accounts of the infinitesimal
analysis about energy and radiation and resultingly the changes,
not just one.
The Newtonian can be retro-fitted with a "spurious factor of 2"
by common treatments and approaches like "the path integral's",
it's rather simple.
For "space-time" to "curve" and thus "contain" things, the "things"
define the "curve", so, that's either a constant violation of energy everywhere doing work for free, or, it isn't (and, it doesn't).
Den 26.09.2026 12:11, skrev HenryWilson:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2026 10:48:48 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Confuse, Ralph?
Den 25.09.2026 11:43, skrev HenryWilson:KineticEnergyNOTFrameDependent.html
On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 22:28:14 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Ralph proving that kinetic energy is not frame dependent:
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/
Ralph proving that kinetic energy is frame dependent:
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html
quote:
| Here's the problem.
|
| P1->v-------J-------<-P2 |
| Jerry is positioned midway between two planets that are approaching
| each other at +/-v as measured by Jerry.
|
| Jerry calculates the total energy of the system as:
| 1/2Mv^2 + 1/2Mv^2 = Mv^2
Paul, have you been consuming too much of that stuff again? What you
describe is not the energy of a system. It is the KE of a single object
of mass 2M.
To discuss system KE you have to include how it originated and how
momentum is conserved in the process. I explained this years ago.
I describe nothing, I am quoting you.
Which object of mass 2M did you describe? :-D
Was that statement meant to divert the attention from the fact that you demonstrated that kinetic energy is frame dependent?
|Being a radio engineer, did not learn much Physics.
| A friend on P1 contacts Jerry and argues that he is wrong.
| P1 is appoaching at 2v and the energy of the system is therefore: |
1/2M(2v)^2 or 2Mv^2.
You correctly calculated:
Kinetic energy of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2 Kinetic
energy of system in P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2
Well done!
On Sun, 27 Sep 2026 09:40:07 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 09/26/2026 10:33 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:Gravitational_lens#Approximate_Newtonian_description>
HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 01:22:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories >>>>>>>>> is done, and should e done.
You need a theoretical framework for that,
You need the correct theoretical framework.
Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be >>>>>>> used to derive a prediction.
(which may of course prove to be incorrect)
Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with
what is observed.
Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using
'Newton'.
(or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more)
According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate >>>>>> for constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s
If by "GR redshift" you two mean "gravitational redshift", it has
nothing to do with any constant speed. So you, "HenryWilson", have
no clue.
It has everything to do with Einstein's denial of variable speed.
Einstein does not "deny variable speed". You have no idea what you are
saying.
To begin with, you have to say the speed /of what/ you are talking
about for your statement to have a chance to make sense, let alone be
correct.
You preach relativity but know nothing about it.
No, you are arguing ambiguously from your own staggering ignorance.
Newton simply says light slow as it leaves the sun and loses KE.
Newton wondered, but did not state anything, about light in that
regard.
As I indicated, the Newtonian interpretation of light with regard to
gravitation was proposed by other people. But it does not work with
the deflection of light, and only approximately regarding gravitational
redshift:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Gravitational_redshift#Astronomical_observations>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Newtonian_limit>
Einstein accepted that light loses energy as it moves into weaker
gravity
He did not. That is not what general relativity says. Also, the term
"weaker gravity" is pop-sci babble that does not make any sense.
Instead, the fact that less proper time elapses closer to a center of
mass, because the spacetime curvature is "stronger" there (for lack of
a better term) than farther away from it, results in the fact that the
frequency/wavelength of (monochrome) light that is emitted there is
measured to be smaller/larger farther away (and larger/smaller closer
to it).
The spacetime around a spherically-symmetric mass distribution with
total mass M can be described by the Schwarzschild metric (in natural
units and Schwarzschild coordinates),
ds-# = reAd-a-# = reA(1 reA 2mreor) dt-# + (1 reA 2mreor)rU+-| dr-# + r-# d+--#, m = G
Mreoc-#,
d+--# = d++-# + sin-#(++) d-a-#,
where d-a is the infinitesimal elapsed proper time interval.
At relative rest, dr = d+- = 0:
d-a-# = (1 reA 2mreor) dt-# rco d-a = reU(1 reA 2mreor) dt.
This can be analyzed either in terms of the frequency f = 1/T of a
periodic process or phenomenon with period T,
f(r) reY 1reod-a = (1reodt) 1reoreU(1 reA 2mreor) reY f(reR)reoreU(1 reA 2mreor),
where f(reR) would be the frequency at infinite distance from the center >>> of mass (radius), as dt would be the infinitesimal proper time interval
that elapses there; or wavelength
++(r) reY c d-a(r) = c dt reU(1 reA 2mreor) reY ++(reR) reU(1 reA 2mreor).
Comparing the frequencies at different finite radii rree > rreU yields
f(rree)reof(rreU) = reU(1 reA 2mreorreU)reoreU(1 reA 2mreorree) < 1. >>>
So the frequency at rree is smaller than at rreU. The frequency of reddish >>> light is smaller than that of bluish light:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum>
So light is measured redshifted at rree when it is emitted at rreU, and
blueshifted at rreU when it is emitted at rree.
Similarly, comparing the wavelengths at those radii, respectively,
yields
++(rree)reo++(rreU) = reU(1 reA 2mreorree)reoreU(1 reA 2mreorreU) > 1. >>>
So the wavelength at rree is larger than at rreU. The wavelength of
reddish light is larger than that of bluish light: Light is measured
redshifted at rree when it is emitted at rreU, and blueshifted at rreU when >>> it is emitted at rree.
We observe gravitational blueshift when terrestrial artificial
satellites above a certain orbital altitude, like GPS satellites, are
sending radio signals towards the surface of Terra, and we observe
gravitational redshift when light is emitted in the vicinity of objects
with a large mass, like the star S2 that is orbiting the black hole Sgr
A* near the center of the Milky Way:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
mathematics-of-waves>
It is also how black holes -- which have been observed -- are black:
light emitted from just outside their outer event horizons is
"gravitationally" redshifted so much as to become invisible (for
humans)
and undetectable (indistinguishable from the CMB):
<https://youtu.be/vNaEBbFbvcY?si=d09zljfdLWeBK1sA>
All of this is observed /precisely/ as GR predicts it, NOT as a
Newtonian interpretation would predict it.
[Note that "gravitional redshift/blueshift" is just a convenient
misnomer. The correct explanation for this phenomenon is NOT
gravitation, but the curvature of spacetime. Gravitation is another
consequence of that curvature, but otherwise _unrelated_ to
"gravitational" redshift.]
but because it was not allowed to slow, he had to concoct the idea
that light possesses a 'frequency' that decreases and so make h.nu
smaller.
Light is experimentally confirmed to be describable as an
electromagnetic wave, and like every wave it has a frequency and a
wavelength:
<https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/16-2-
Radio is experimentally confirmed to be electromagnetic radiation
Newton's corpuscular theory was falsified by the fact that light slows
down in a medium, measured by Foucault in 1850. The wave theory of
light was confirmed, and the corpuscular theory falsified, by the
interference pattern in Young's double-slit experiment. Maxwell
postulated light as an electromagnetic wave in 1864. Hertz confirmed
electromagnetic waves experimentally in 1888. Marconi used that in
1894 to invent wireless telegraphy. Based on that, Reginald Fessenden
and others realized public radio transmissions by 1920. After World
War II terrestrial television was invented, and so on, until today's
wireless networks and satellite communication.
See also:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guglielmo_Marconi>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television>
You are not just 110 years, but 176 years (!) behind current knowledge.
[crackpot fantasies]
because it interacts with the electrical and magnetic fields.
Light is experimentally confirmed to _not_ interact with the electrical
and magnetic fields, though of course there are many junctions due
structures the opto-electronic and so on, similarly for heat radiation
the thermionic and plain incandescent.
So, there are a variety of kinds of _energy_ and _radiation_. Then,
the "electromagnetic spectrum" is just a chance sort of occurrence
usually given to the quantum theory where frequency and wavelength make
to define, given a definition of a "quantum" or "particle" of energy,
that that's given how much energy it is.
So, light and radio their propagation equations as forms of radiation
are much alike, yet not completely, since light is alike "pure
diffraction" and making for things like "Arago/Poisson spot",
while, radio does not. Furthermore, light's "signal" as "image"
is due decoherence of light, while radio's is the opposite.
This is well known as that two people in visual range can see each other
uninterferedly, while if they attempt to radio at the same time that
occurs interferedly, just like talking over each other.
The bandwidth multiplexing is just a complicated coordinated usually
temperature-compensated phase-loop-locked protocol,
readily ruined by random electromagnetic noise, yet never light.
Then, heat radiation under the infra-red, and Roentgen or X-rays above
the ultra-violet, these are also different forms of radiation, with
their junctions and their accounts of propagation simply as alike rays
in waves, again, not-so-much "electromagnetic" at all.
So, energy in the entelechy, and radiation (rays) and their accounts as
waves as being "geometrical", then have that the "optical" and its
accounts of "aberration" (or "illusion") belong to the properly
"optical".
Rutherford is a great theorist and theoretician.
O.W. Richardson gives three different accounts of the infinitesimal
analysis about energy and radiation and resultingly the changes,
not just one.
The Newtonian can be retro-fitted with a "spurious factor of 2"
by common treatments and approaches like "the path integral's",
it's rather simple.
For "space-time" to "curve" and thus "contain" things, the "things"
define the "curve", so, that's either a constant violation of energy
everywhere doing work for free, or, it isn't (and, it doesn't).
Yes, no and possibly maybe. if you look at it from all directions ....but
you have made one thing clear. We know how light is created, We know how
what happens when it reacts with our eyes and instruments...but we know virtually nothing about what it is. Sure, radio can be detected
electrically or magnetically but that does not necessitate that it
consists of those two things. After all, trees grow by consuming light and produce lots of light when burned..but that doesn't mean they are made of light. Maxwell's equations essentially describe what light DOES rather
than what it IS. I am now wondering if the ethereal entity that actually travels is not really 'light' at all but just something that induces the phenomenon that our brains refer to as light when it hits us. Dimensions beyond our limited MLT are no doubt involved.
Paul don't preach your version of Physics to a real Physiist. I am
well aware that the popular convention of ascribing moving objects
with 'kinetic energy' is very convenient because it describes the
amount of work the objects can do when absorbed. That is usually
sufficient because in most practical situations because the KE of the inevitable recoiling object is usually insignificant. For instance
when a bullet is fired from a gun almost all the chemical energy of
the charge goes into moving the bullet, not the gun. However, if you
add the KE of the bullet to that of the gun, you will find that the
total is independent of your own relative movement in the original
gun frame. The creation of the combined KE is frame independent.
Den 28.09.2026 08:22, skrev HenryWilson:
Paul don't preach your version of Physics to a real Physiist. I am
well aware that the popular convention of ascribing moving objects
with 'kinetic energy' is very convenient because it describes the
amount of work the objects can do when absorbed. That is usually
sufficient because in most practical situations because the KE of the
inevitable recoiling object is usually insignificant. For instance
when a bullet is fired from a gun almost all the chemical energy of
the charge goes into moving the bullet, not the gun. However, if you
add the KE of the bullet to that of the gun, you will find that the
total is independent of your own relative movement in the original
gun frame. The creation of the combined KE is frame independent.
16-Feb-2009 Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson wrote: https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html
quote:
| Here's the problem.
|
| P1->v-------J-------<-P2
|
| Jerry is positioned midway between two planets that are
| approaching each other at -#v as measured by Jerry.
|
| Jerry calculates the total energy of the system as:
| 1/2Mv^2 + 1/2Mv^2 = Mv^2.
|
| A friend on P1 contacts Jerry and argues that he is wrong.
| P1 is appoaching at 2v and the energy of the system is
| therefore: 1/2M(2v)^2 or 2Mv^2.
You correctly demonstrated that KE is frame dependent:
Kinetic energy of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2
Kinetic energy of system in P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2
Were you wrong when you wrote this, Ralph?
On 09/28/2026 10:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 28.09.2026 08:22, skrev HenryWilson:Any two frames are in a common frame.
You correctly demonstrated that KE is frame dependent: Kinetic energy
of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2 Kinetic energy of system in
P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2
Were you wrong when you wrote this, Ralph?
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 09/28/2026 10:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 28.09.2026 08:22, skrev HenryWilson:Any two frames are in a common frame.
You correctly demonstrated that KE is frame dependent: Kinetic energy
of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2 Kinetic energy of system in
P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2
Were you wrong when you wrote this, Ralph?
instantaneously yes, finally a good answer to a question. But except
light, there is nothing instantaneous in this world
Any two frames are in a common frame.
instantaneously yes, finally a good answer to a question. But except
light, there is nothing instantaneous in this world
Since when?
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Any two frames are in a common frame.
instantaneously yes, finally a good answer to a question. But except
light, there is nothing instantaneous in this world
Since when?
yet another imbecile not knowing what an event is; you must be gearmon, or from australia
On 09/28/2026 10:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 28.09.2026 08:22, skrev HenryWilson:
Paul don't preach your version of Physics to a real Physiist. I am
well aware that the popular convention of ascribing moving objects
with 'kinetic energy' is very convenient because it describes the
amount of work the objects can do when absorbed. That is usually
sufficient because in most practical situations because the KE of the
inevitable recoiling object is usually insignificant. For instance
when a bullet is fired from a gun almost all the chemical energy of
the charge goes into moving the bullet, not the gun. However, if you
add the KE of the bullet to that of the gun, you will find that the
total is independent of your own relative movement in the original
gun frame. The creation of the combined KE is frame independent.
16-Feb-2009 Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson wrote:
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html
quote:
| Here's the problem.
|
| P1->v-------J-------<-P2
|
| Jerry is positioned midway between two planets that are
| approaching each other at -#v as measured by Jerry.
|
| Jerry calculates the total energy of the system as:
| 1/2Mv^2 + 1/2Mv^2 = Mv^2.
|
| A friend on P1 contacts Jerry and argues that he is wrong.
| P1 is appoaching at 2v and the energy of the system is
| therefore: 1/2M(2v)^2 or 2Mv^2.
You correctly demonstrated that KE is frame dependent:
Kinetic energy of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2
Kinetic energy of system in P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2
Were you wrong when you wrote this, Ralph?
Any two frames are in a common frame.
On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 21:32:26 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
So yes, they corrected for both orital motion and for rotation of the
Moon.
BTW, the orbit of the Moon is known to mm accuracy because it can be
verified by laser reflection.
But why are you bothering to talk about such detail when you are going
to claim it is all faked anyway?
Why did they use reflected light from the moon anyway? Why the hell didn't they just use direct sunlight?
Was it because they knew they could not fake that?
In order to get a detectable reflection from a retroreflector on Moon
one needs a very bright light. Sun is not bright enough.
Le 28/09/2026 |a 20:15, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
On 09/28/2026 10:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 28.09.2026 08:22, skrev HenryWilson:
Paul don't preach your version of Physics to a real Physiist. I am
well aware that the popular convention of ascribing moving objects
with 'kinetic energy' is very convenient because it describes the
amount of work the objects can do when absorbed. That is usually
sufficient because in most practical situations because the KE of the
inevitable recoiling object is usually insignificant. For instance
when a bullet is fired from a gun almost all the chemical energy of
the charge goes into moving the bullet, not the gun. However, if you
add the KE of the bullet to that of the gun, you will find that the
total is independent of your own relative movement in the original
gun frame. The creation of the combined KE is frame independent.
16-Feb-2009 Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson wrote:
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html
quote:
| Here's the problem.
|
| P1->v-------J-------<-P2
|
| Jerry is positioned midway between two planets that are
| approaching each other at -#v as measured by Jerry.
|
| Jerry calculates the total energy of the system as:
| 1/2Mv^2 + 1/2Mv^2 = Mv^2.
|
| A friend on P1 contacts Jerry and argues that he is wrong.
| P1 is appoaching at 2v and the energy of the system is
| therefore: 1/2M(2v)^2 or 2Mv^2.
You correctly demonstrated that KE is frame dependent:
Kinetic energy of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2
Kinetic energy of system in P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2
Were you wrong when you wrote this, Ralph?
Any two frames are in a common frame.
This is getting wonderfully efficient.
In 2009, Ralph correctly demonstrated that kinetic energy is
frame-dependent.
In 2026, Wilson explains that kinetic energy is frame-independent.
And Ross resolves the contradiction with the profound observation:
"Any two frames are in a common frame."
Ralph has lost his frame of reference, and Ross has kindly found him
another one.
Unfortunately, kinetic energy is frame-dependent in that one too.
At this rate, one more physicist should be enough to abolish reference
frames altogether.
Conservation of energy is doing fine. Conservation of arguments, not so
much.
On 09/28/2026 03:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 28/09/2026 |a 20:15, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
On 09/28/2026 10:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 28.09.2026 08:22, skrev HenryWilson:
Paul don't preach your version of Physics to a real Physiist. I am
well aware that the popular convention of ascribing moving objects
with 'kinetic energy' is very convenient because it describes the
amount of work the objects can do when absorbed. That is usually
sufficient because in most practical situations because the KE of the >>>>> inevitable recoiling object is usually insignificant. For instance
when a bullet is fired from a gun almost all the chemical energy of
the charge goes into moving the bullet, not the gun. However, if you >>>>> add the KE of the bullet to that of the gun, you will find that the
total is independent of your own relative movement in the original
gun frame. The creation of the combined KE is frame independent.
16-Feb-2009 Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson wrote:
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html
quote:
| Here's the problem.
|
| P1->v-------J-------<-P2
|
| Jerry is positioned midway between two planets that are
| approaching each other at -#v as measured by Jerry.
|
| Jerry calculates the total energy of the system as:
| 1/2Mv^2 + 1/2Mv^2 = Mv^2.
|
| A friend on P1 contacts Jerry and argues that he is wrong.
| P1 is appoaching at 2v and the energy of the system is
| therefore: 1/2M(2v)^2 or 2Mv^2.
You correctly demonstrated that KE is frame dependent:
Kinetic energy of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2
Kinetic energy of system in P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2
Were you wrong when you wrote this, Ralph?
Any two frames are in a common frame.
This is getting wonderfully efficient.
In 2009, Ralph correctly demonstrated that kinetic energy is
frame-dependent.
In 2026, Wilson explains that kinetic energy is frame-independent.
And Ross resolves the contradiction with the profound observation:
"Any two frames are in a common frame."
Ralph has lost his frame of reference, and Ross has kindly found him
another one.
Unfortunately, kinetic energy is frame-dependent in that one too.
At this rate, one more physicist should be enough to abolish reference
frames altogether.
Conservation of energy is doing fine. Conservation of arguments, not so
much.
Well, since Lagrange about "real" and "potential" or "real" and
"fictitious", the energy or forces, there's that the one sums
to zero while the other sums to not-a-number.
So, Lagrange makes at least two accounts about the _potential_
and the _potentials_ and the _potentialistic_.
Then, about Noether theorem or conservation law, there's a more
thorough account of _continuity law_, and for something like
Shech's theorem (which as far as I know was an early bot output).
About energy and momentum, and which is real and which is derived,
and inertia and momentum, and which is real and which is derived, conservation of energy eventually demands an entelechy of a space.
Conservation of energy is easy in closed systems, yet,
physics is an open system, and furthermore, any closed
system sits in an open system.
Back to Lagrange, the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction"
started before that, yet in the formalism and for the account, then
has that Lagrange-closed and Lagrange-open are two different theories
of Lagrange.
So, more than a sum-of-histories, it's a sum-of-potentials,
more than a least-action, it's a least-gradient,
more than conservation law, it's continuity law.
Why don't you dig a hole to China and notice now the non-linear
oscillator has that the hole in the center of the Earth is
an immovable object.
Then, about attenuation/dissipation and oscillation/restitution,
in closed and open systems, the "severe abstraction of the
mechanical reduction" is a bit too severe and a bit too reduced.
On 09/29/2026 08:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 09/28/2026 03:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 28/09/2026 |a 20:15, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
On 09/28/2026 10:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 28.09.2026 08:22, skrev HenryWilson:
Paul don't preach your version of Physics to a real Physiist. I am >>>>>> well aware that the popular convention of ascribing moving objects >>>>>> with 'kinetic energy' is very convenient because it describes the
amount of work the objects can do when absorbed. That is usually
sufficient because in most practical situations because the KE of the >>>>>> inevitable recoiling object is usually insignificant. For instance >>>>>> when a bullet is fired from a gun almost all the chemical energy of >>>>>> the charge goes into moving the bullet, not the gun. However, if you >>>>>> add the KE of the bullet to that of the gun, you will find that the >>>>>> total is independent of your own relative movement in the original >>>>>> gun frame. The creation of the combined KE is frame independent.
16-Feb-2009 Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson wrote:
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html
quote:
| Here's the problem.
|
| P1->v-------J-------<-P2
|
| Jerry is positioned midway between two planets that are
| approaching each other at -#v as measured by Jerry.
|
| Jerry calculates the total energy of the system as:
| 1/2Mv^2 + 1/2Mv^2 = Mv^2.
|
| A friend on P1 contacts Jerry and argues that he is wrong.
| P1 is appoaching at 2v and the energy of the system is
| therefore: 1/2M(2v)^2 or 2Mv^2.
You correctly demonstrated that KE is frame dependent:
Kinetic energy of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2
Kinetic energy of system in P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2
Were you wrong when you wrote this, Ralph?
Any two frames are in a common frame.
This is getting wonderfully efficient.
In 2009, Ralph correctly demonstrated that kinetic energy is
frame-dependent.
In 2026, Wilson explains that kinetic energy is frame-independent.
And Ross resolves the contradiction with the profound observation:
"Any two frames are in a common frame."
Ralph has lost his frame of reference, and Ross has kindly found him
another one.
Unfortunately, kinetic energy is frame-dependent in that one too.
At this rate, one more physicist should be enough to abolish reference
frames altogether.
Conservation of energy is doing fine. Conservation of arguments, not so
much.
Well, since Lagrange about "real" and "potential" or "real" and
"fictitious", the energy or forces, there's that the one sums
to zero while the other sums to not-a-number.
So, Lagrange makes at least two accounts about the _potential_
and the _potentials_ and the _potentialistic_.
Then, about Noether theorem or conservation law, there's a more
thorough account of _continuity law_, and for something like
Shech's theorem (which as far as I know was an early bot output).
About energy and momentum, and which is real and which is derived,
and inertia and momentum, and which is real and which is derived,
conservation of energy eventually demands an entelechy of a space.
Conservation of energy is easy in closed systems, yet,
physics is an open system, and furthermore, any closed
system sits in an open system.
Back to Lagrange, the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction"
started before that, yet in the formalism and for the account, then
has that Lagrange-closed and Lagrange-open are two different theories
of Lagrange.
So, more than a sum-of-histories, it's a sum-of-potentials,
more than a least-action, it's a least-gradient,
more than conservation law, it's continuity law.
Why don't you dig a hole to China and notice now the non-linear
oscillator has that the hole in the center of the Earth is
an immovable object.
Then, about attenuation/dissipation and oscillation/restitution,
in closed and open systems, the "severe abstraction of the
mechanical reduction" is a bit too severe and a bit too reduced.
Creation and destruction versus conservation has that the
wider, fuller dialectic provides ready grounds for both.
Accounts like Sedov's "macroscopic theories of matter"
always include "gyroscopic" and "continuity" relations
beyond "kinetic" relations, and Sedov carefully explains
that energy is always in a material form, that there's
no such thing as "pure energy" at all.
Anyways, back to Lagrange, and "the severe abstraction of
the mechanical reduction", like what you can read about it
from "The Dictionary of the History of Science", makes that
Lagrange has two theories, and they're basically opposites.
If you're not a "philosopher of physics", I suppose that
you can still "close down and compute".
Ross,
That was an impressive journey from Lagrange to Noether, via entelechy,
open systems and a hole to China.
Unfortunately, Ralph's problem is still sitting exactly where we left it:
Jerry's frame:
KE = M v^2
P1's frame:
KE = 2 M v^2
Same physical system, two inertial frames, two different values of
kinetic energy.
That is Ralph's own 2009 calculation.
So before we dig a hole through the Earth, could we perhaps fill the considerably smaller hole in Ralph's argument?
Which of these is wrong:
M v^2
or
2 M v^2?
If neither is wrong, then kinetic energy is frame-dependent.
No Lagrangian, Noether theorem, "sum-of-potentials", "least-gradient",
open universe or Chinese tunnel changes that elementary fact.
Ralph had it right in 2009.
The mystery is not physics.
The mystery is what happened to Ralph between 2009 and 2026.
Le 29/09/2026 |a 17:55, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
On 09/29/2026 08:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 09/28/2026 03:47 PM, Python wrote:
Le 28/09/2026 |a 20:15, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
On 09/28/2026 10:32 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 28.09.2026 08:22, skrev HenryWilson:
Paul don't preach your version of Physics to a real Physiist. I am >>>>>>> well aware that the popular convention of ascribing moving objects >>>>>>> with 'kinetic energy' is very convenient because it describes the >>>>>>> amount of work the objects can do when absorbed. That is usually >>>>>>> sufficient because in most practical situations because the KE of >>>>>>> the
inevitable recoiling object is usually insignificant. For instance >>>>>>> when a bullet is fired from a gun almost all the chemical energy of >>>>>>> the charge goes into moving the bullet, not the gun. However, if you >>>>>>> add the KE of the bullet to that of the gun, you will find that the >>>>>>> total is independent of your own relative movement in the original >>>>>>> gun frame. The creation of the combined KE is frame independent. >>>>>>>
16-Feb-2009 Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson wrote:
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html
quote:
| Here's the problem.
|
| P1->v-------J-------<-P2
|
| Jerry is positioned midway between two planets that are
| approaching each other at -#v as measured by Jerry.
|
| Jerry calculates the total energy of the system as:
| 1/2Mv^2 + 1/2Mv^2 = Mv^2.
|
| A friend on P1 contacts Jerry and argues that he is wrong.
| P1 is appoaching at 2v and the energy of the system is
| therefore: 1/2M(2v)^2 or 2Mv^2.
You correctly demonstrated that KE is frame dependent:
Kinetic energy of system in Jerry's rest frame KE = Mv^2
Kinetic energy of system in P1's rest frame KE = 2Mv^2
Were you wrong when you wrote this, Ralph?
Any two frames are in a common frame.
This is getting wonderfully efficient.
In 2009, Ralph correctly demonstrated that kinetic energy is
frame-dependent.
In 2026, Wilson explains that kinetic energy is frame-independent.
And Ross resolves the contradiction with the profound observation:
"Any two frames are in a common frame."
Ralph has lost his frame of reference, and Ross has kindly found him
another one.
Unfortunately, kinetic energy is frame-dependent in that one too.
At this rate, one more physicist should be enough to abolish reference >>>> frames altogether.
Conservation of energy is doing fine. Conservation of arguments, not so >>>> much.
Well, since Lagrange about "real" and "potential" or "real" and
"fictitious", the energy or forces, there's that the one sums
to zero while the other sums to not-a-number.
So, Lagrange makes at least two accounts about the _potential_
and the _potentials_ and the _potentialistic_.
Then, about Noether theorem or conservation law, there's a more
thorough account of _continuity law_, and for something like
Shech's theorem (which as far as I know was an early bot output).
About energy and momentum, and which is real and which is derived,
and inertia and momentum, and which is real and which is derived,
conservation of energy eventually demands an entelechy of a space.
Conservation of energy is easy in closed systems, yet,
physics is an open system, and furthermore, any closed
system sits in an open system.
Back to Lagrange, the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction"
started before that, yet in the formalism and for the account, then
has that Lagrange-closed and Lagrange-open are two different theories
of Lagrange.
So, more than a sum-of-histories, it's a sum-of-potentials,
more than a least-action, it's a least-gradient,
more than conservation law, it's continuity law.
Why don't you dig a hole to China and notice now the non-linear
oscillator has that the hole in the center of the Earth is
an immovable object.
Then, about attenuation/dissipation and oscillation/restitution,
in closed and open systems, the "severe abstraction of the
mechanical reduction" is a bit too severe and a bit too reduced.
Creation and destruction versus conservation has that the
wider, fuller dialectic provides ready grounds for both.
Accounts like Sedov's "macroscopic theories of matter"
always include "gyroscopic" and "continuity" relations
beyond "kinetic" relations, and Sedov carefully explains
that energy is always in a material form, that there's
no such thing as "pure energy" at all.
Anyways, back to Lagrange, and "the severe abstraction of
the mechanical reduction", like what you can read about it
from "The Dictionary of the History of Science", makes that
Lagrange has two theories, and they're basically opposites.
If you're not a "philosopher of physics", I suppose that
you can still "close down and compute".
Ross,
I see you are now replying to yourself.
At least you have finally found two observers who share a common frame.
Meanwhile, the original calculation remains:
Jerry: KE = Mv^2
P1: KE = 2Mv^2
Is either calculation wrong?
If not, kinetic energy is frame-dependent.
We have now visited Lagrange, Noether, Sedov, dialectics and a hole to
China without getting any closer to that question.
So yes, perhaps this is an excellent occasion to "close down and compute."
Just once.
On 09/29/2026 08:35 AM, Python wrote:
Ross,
That was an impressive journey from Lagrange to Noether, via entelechy,
open systems and a hole to China.
Unfortunately, Ralph's problem is still sitting exactly where we left it:
Jerry's frame:
KE = M v^2
P1's frame:
KE = 2 M v^2
Same physical system, two inertial frames, two different values of
kinetic energy.
That is Ralph's own 2009 calculation.
So before we dig a hole through the Earth, could we perhaps fill the
considerably smaller hole in Ralph's argument?
Which of these is wrong:
M v^2
or
2 M v^2?
If neither is wrong, then kinetic energy is frame-dependent.
No Lagrangian, Noether theorem, "sum-of-potentials", "least-gradient",
open universe or Chinese tunnel changes that elementary fact.
Ralph had it right in 2009.
The mystery is not physics.
The mystery is what happened to Ralph between 2009 and 2026.
Take the distance to zero.
On 09/29/2026 09:00 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 09/29/2026 08:35 AM, Python wrote:
Ross,
That was an impressive journey from Lagrange to Noether, via entelechy,
open systems and a hole to China.
Unfortunately, Ralph's problem is still sitting exactly where we left
it:
Jerry's frame:
KE = M v^2
P1's frame:
KE = 2 M v^2
Same physical system, two inertial frames, two different values of
kinetic energy.
That is Ralph's own 2009 calculation.
So before we dig a hole through the Earth, could we perhaps fill the
considerably smaller hole in Ralph's argument?
Which of these is wrong:
M v^2
or
2 M v^2?
If neither is wrong, then kinetic energy is frame-dependent.
No Lagrangian, Noether theorem, "sum-of-potentials", "least-gradient",
open universe or Chinese tunnel changes that elementary fact.
Ralph had it right in 2009.
The mystery is not physics.
The mystery is what happened to Ralph between 2009 and 2026.
Take the distance to zero.
See, now you gave yourself a twins paradox to go along with
your perspective problem.
On 09/29/2026 09:05 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 09/29/2026 09:00 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 09/29/2026 08:35 AM, Python wrote:
Ross,
That was an impressive journey from Lagrange to Noether, via entelechy, >>>> open systems and a hole to China.
Unfortunately, Ralph's problem is still sitting exactly where we left
it:
Jerry's frame:
KE = M v^2
P1's frame:
KE = 2 M v^2
Same physical system, two inertial frames, two different values of
kinetic energy.
That is Ralph's own 2009 calculation.
So before we dig a hole through the Earth, could we perhaps fill the
considerably smaller hole in Ralph's argument?
Which of these is wrong:
M v^2
or
2 M v^2?
If neither is wrong, then kinetic energy is frame-dependent.
No Lagrangian, Noether theorem, "sum-of-potentials", "least-gradient", >>>> open universe or Chinese tunnel changes that elementary fact.
Ralph had it right in 2009.
The mystery is not physics.
The mystery is what happened to Ralph between 2009 and 2026.
Take the distance to zero.
See, now you gave yourself a twins paradox to go along with
your perspective problem.
How about "Moment and Motion: a story of momentum".
On 09/29/2026 09:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 09/29/2026 09:05 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 09/29/2026 09:00 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 09/29/2026 08:35 AM, Python wrote:
Ross,
That was an impressive journey from Lagrange to Noether, via
entelechy,
open systems and a hole to China.
Unfortunately, Ralph's problem is still sitting exactly where we left >>>>> it:
Jerry's frame:
KE = M v^2
P1's frame:
KE = 2 M v^2
Same physical system, two inertial frames, two different values of
kinetic energy.
That is Ralph's own 2009 calculation.
So before we dig a hole through the Earth, could we perhaps fill the >>>>> considerably smaller hole in Ralph's argument?
Which of these is wrong:
M v^2
or
2 M v^2?
If neither is wrong, then kinetic energy is frame-dependent.
No Lagrangian, Noether theorem, "sum-of-potentials", "least-gradient", >>>>> open universe or Chinese tunnel changes that elementary fact.
Ralph had it right in 2009.
The mystery is not physics.
The mystery is what happened to Ralph between 2009 and 2026.
Take the distance to zero.
See, now you gave yourself a twins paradox to go along with
your perspective problem.
How about "Moment and Motion: a story of momentum".
You've probably heard of Newton and Leibnitz and their
priority dispute over the discovery of the calculus,
though one arrived at differentiation the other integration
and MacLaurin wrote the rigorous formal treatment in the
"Infinitesimal Analysis" long before Cauchy and Weierstrass,
yet also there's the account of Newton and Liebnitz about
mechanics, and these are terms you should know: vis-motrix
and vis-viva about the vis-insite, and I'll add vis-obliqua.
Theories of "vortices" for example since DesCartes and Kelvin
help illustrate that the plain linear accounts essentially
have no concept of rotation, about the un-linear, about some
"Zero-eth laws of motion", where the Galilean is due a fragment
of the Mertonian school and Newton's laws are just re-hashing
Galileo and Kepler, and about the definition of "force" vis-a-vis
"mass" and "acceleration", vis-a-vis, velocity, and speed.
So, spinning the bucket as it were, every time you jump up and down,
the Earth bounces back.
So, "the severe abstraction the mechanical reduction", is the
result of a quite more thorough account than "perfect inelastic
collision" since "immovable and unstoppable".
When the twins, for example a light, goes from "Jerry", or
"Charlie" for example, to equidistant points p and returns,
now you've begotten two twin paradoxes, under the reductio,
ad absurdam.
Maybe you should try for "ab absurdam" instead of "ad absurdam".
The vis-obliqua is non-zero. "Worlds turn."
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote or quoted:
In order to get a detectable reflection from a retroreflector on Moon
one needs a very bright light. Sun is not bright enough.
The sun is quite bright, but a retroreflector sends light
back to where it came from. Moreover, when the sun shines
on a retro-reflector, it shines on its environment too, so
the contrast is reduced.
One can detect retroreflectors on the Moon from Earth using
a /lunar laser ranging/ with time-gating and time-histogram
integration.
Ross,
That was an impressive journey from Lagrange to Noether, via entelechy,
open systems and a hole to China.
Unfortunately, Ralph's problem is still sitting exactly where we left it:
Jerry's frame:
KE = M v^2
P1's frame:
KE = 2 M v^2
Same physical system, two inertial frames, two different values of
kinetic energy.
That is Ralph's own 2009 calculation.
So before we dig a hole through the Earth, could we perhaps fill the considerably smaller hole in Ralph's argument?
Which of these is wrong:
M v^2
or
2 M v^2?
If neither is wrong, then kinetic energy is frame-dependent.
No Lagrangian, Noether theorem, "sum-of-potentials", "least-gradient",
open universe or Chinese tunnel changes that elementary fact.
Ralph had it right in 2009.
The mystery is not physics.
The mystery is what happened to Ralph between 2009 and 2026.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 121:09:41 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,352 |
| Messages: | 290,208 |