From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

You may be shocked, but it's not the answer
of The Nature to your prayers.

It's a procedure developed for providing
some information used in other procedures
of our data processing system.

You may wave your arms and scream that
your clocks are perfect, your procedures
are perfect and you are perfect. But
nobody is obliged to treat your ravings
seriously, and nobody is going to.
Sane people have their own measurements
and they're giving t'=t. Sorry, trash.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

Excellent. Then we finally have a clear empirical claim:

"Sane people have their own measurements and they're giving t'=t."

You already gave "GPS" as your example, so let's make the question
precise.

SHOW US THE MEASUREMENT.

Not an opinion. Not a definition of "measurement". Not an insult. And not simply the word "GPS".

If GPS is your measurement giving t'=t, identify it:

1. Which two physical clocks are being compared?
2. What are their trajectories?
3. What quantities are actually measured?
4. What is the result before the relevant relativistic rate corrections, synchronization procedures or compensations are applied?
5. Where, specifically, does that result give t'=t?

There is an obvious distinction here:

"GPS provides a common synchronized time scale"

is not the same proposition as:

"Uncorrected clocks undergoing different trajectories are measured to accumulate equal proper times."

A clock deliberately calibrated or rate-adjusted to compensate for a
predicted effect is not a "wrong clock". Nobody said that.

But observing that the corrected clock subsequently agrees with the
reference time scale is not evidence that the effect being compensated was zero.

So if GPS really provides your measurement of t'=t, fine.

Give us the experiment, the clocks, the observable, the procedure and the result. A paper, technical report, dataset, or sufficiently detailed experimental description will do.

You have repeatedly claimed that such measurements exist.

Now show where t'=t is actually measured.

"GPS" is the name of a system, not a measurement result.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/28/2026 12:56 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

Excellent. Then we finally have a clear empirical claim:

"Sane people have their own measurements and they're giving t'=t."

You already gave "GPS" as your example, so let's make the question precise.

SHOW US THE MEASUREMENT.

Jeez. You ask the same question again
and again and again, always only to
assert that nobody is disputing always
the same answer you get.
OK, once again.
A clock in a GPS ground base measures
t = 2026-09-28 13:00:00.0000000000.
What is t' measured by a clock on
a satellite?



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

Good. Now we can finally see exactly where the disagreement is.

Suppose the ground clock reads:

t = 2026-09-28 13:00:00.0000000000

and the operational GPS satellite clock reads:

t' = 2026-09-28 13:00:00.0000000000.

Fine.

But that is not a measurement showing that the two freely running clocks accumulated equal proper times.

It shows that the GPS system succeeded in making the satellite clock
represent GPS system time.

That is precisely what GPS is engineered to do.

So now remove the engineering that makes them agree.

Take the satellite atomic clock with no relativistic rate compensation/correction relative to the ground reference, synchronize the clocks initially, let them run, and compare their accumulated elapsed
times later.

What do you get?

That is the measurement I have been asking you about.

If your claim is really that Nature gives t'=t, then the uncorrected
clocks should remain in agreement.

If instead the uncorrected satellite clock develops the relativistically predicted rate difference, while the operational GPS clock reads t'=t
because its rate/system model has been arranged to compensate for that difference, then GPS demonstrates exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

You are showing me the OUTPUT OF THE CORRECTED SYSTEM and calling it a measurement that no correction was necessary.

Those are not the same proposition.

So yes: an operational satellite clock should give the same GPS time as
the ground system.

Now tell us what the same physical clock would do WITHOUT the relativistic compensation.

That is the experiment.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/28/2026 1:26 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

Good. Now we can finally see exactly where the disagreement is.

Suppose the ground clock reads:

t = 2026-09-28 13:00:00.0000000000

and the operational GPS satellite clock reads:

t' = 2026-09-28 13:00:00.0000000000.

Fine.

But that is not a measurement showing that the two freely running clocks

That is not. Sane people have measurements
of their own.

It shows that the GPS system succeeded in making the satellite clock represent GPS system time.

Yes, it shows that sane people don't give
a damn to "time differently" invented by
that mumbling idiot you're worshiping.

That is precisely what GPS is engineered to do.

That is.

So now remove the engineering that makes them agree.

No I won't. Your assertion that it's going
to make things perfect it's as baseless as
it is idiotic.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

No. I did not assert that removing the compensation would "make things perfect".

I asked what happens when you remove it.

Those are opposites.

And you have just explicitly agreed with this statement:

"GPS is engineered to make the satellite clock represent GPS system time."

Good. Then the fact that the engineered system gives

t' = t

cannot, by itself, tell us whether the underlying uncorrected clocks would give t'=t.

There are two competing hypotheses:

A) Uncorrected satellite and ground clocks naturally accumulate equal
elapsed times.

B) They do not, and GPS obtains agreement by compensating/modeling their different rates.

The observation

"the operational GPS system gives t'=t"

does not distinguish A from B, because the system is engineered to produce that result.

Removing the compensation is not supposed to "make things perfect". It is
a control experiment intended to distinguish A from B.

Under A, removing it should leave the clocks with no systematic
relativistic rate difference.

Under B, removing it should reveal the predicted rate difference.

You refuse to perform or consider precisely the observation that
distinguishes your claim from the alternative.

So your GPS argument is circular:

"GPS clocks agree because GPS is engineered to make them agree; therefore their agreement proves that no engineering was required to compensate for
a physical rate difference."

It doesn't.

And insults about Einstein, me, or anybody else cannot supply the missing control experiment.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/28/2026 2:01 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

No. I did not assert that removing the compensation would "make things perfect".

Python,
Yes. You're lying like always, yes you did.
And you were quotig 2 idiots from CERN
asserting the same - to demonstrate me
that every brainwashed by The Shit idiot
believes that whatever is fitting The Shit
is ideal and perfect. As if I didn't
notice it myself.

"GPS clocks agree because GPS is engineered to make them agree;
therefore their agreement proves that no engineering was required to compensate for a physical rate difference."

A lie, of course, like always - never
said that no engineering was required
to make GPS and its clocks running.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Two very simple points.

First:

"You asserted that removing the compensation would make things perfect."

You say I said that.

QUOTE ME.

Give the exact sentence where I said it.

Second, you write:

"never said that no engineering was required to make GPS and its clocks running."

Neither did I say that you did.

Obviously GPS requires engineering to run. That is completely irrelevant.

The question is specifically whether engineering/modeling is required to compensate for a physical difference in clock rates.

You claim GPS measurements give t'=t.

Fine.

There are still two possibilities:

A) the underlying clocks naturally accumulate equal elapsed times;

B) they don't, and the operational system produces agreement by compensating/modeling the rate difference.

Your observation that operational GPS clocks agree does not distinguish A
from B.

So instead of discussing Einstein, CERN, "The Shit", brainwashing,
perfection, or things neither of us said, answer the one question that distinguishes the hypotheses:

What happens to the relative rate of the satellite and ground clocks when
the relativistic rate compensation/model is not applied?

If your answer is t'=t, show the measurement.

If your answer is not t'=t, then your original GPS example does not demonstrate what you claimed it demonstrates.

And if you believe I claimed something else, quote the sentence.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/28/2026 2:39 PM, Python wrote:

Two very simple points.

First:

"You asserted that removing the compensation would make things perfect."

You say I said that.

QUOTE ME.

Python in restaurant:
A steak please.

Waiter:
you've ordered a steak.

Python
QUOTE ME!!!! QUOTE ME SAYING "I'm ordering a steak"!!!!!

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 28/09/2026 |a 14:45, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/28/2026 2:39 PM, Python wrote:

Two very simple points.

First:

"You asserted that removing the compensation would make things perfect."

You say I said that.

QUOTE ME.

Python in restaurant:
A steak please.

Waiter:
you've ordered a steak.

Python
QUOTE ME!!!! QUOTE ME SAYING "I'm ordering a steak"!!!!!

Maciej,

Excellent. Back to the restaurant.

Python:
"A steak, please."

Waiter:
"So you're ordering a steak."

Python:
"Yes."

Those two sentences mean the same thing.

Now your version:

Python:
"What happens if we remove the GPS compensation?"

Waiter:
"So you're asserting that removing the compensation will make everything perfect."

Python:
"No."

Because those two sentences DO NOT mean the same thing.

Let's try it with the steak.

Python:
"What happens if you don't cook the steak?"

Waiter:
"YOU JUST ASSERTED THAT AN UNCOOKED STEAK WILL BE PERFECT!"

Python:
"No. I asked what happens if you don't cook it."

Waiter:
"LIAR! SAME THING!"

Python:
"Then quote me saying the uncooked steak will be perfect."

Waiter:
"YOU SAID 'WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DON'T COOK IT'!"

Python:
"Yes."

Waiter:
"THEREFORE YOU SAID IT WOULD BE PERFECT!"

Python:
"No."

Waiter:
"Brainwashed by the Michelin Guide."

Python:
"...can I have the bill?"

Waiter:
"Certainly. Forty euros."

Python:
"But I haven't eaten anything."

Waiter:
"Doesn't matter. Sane people have their own measurements."
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/28/2026 3:25 PM, Python wrote:

Le 28/09/2026 |a 14:45, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/28/2026 2:39 PM, Python wrote:

Two very simple points.

First:

"You asserted that removing the compensation would make things perfect." >>>
You say I said that.

QUOTE ME.

Python in restaurant:
A steak please.

Waiter:
you've ordered a steak.

Python
QUOTE ME!!!! QUOTE ME SAYING "I'm ordering a steak"!!!!!

Maciej,

Excellent. Back to the restaurant.

Python:
"A steak, please."

Waiter:
"So you're ordering a steak."

Python:
"Yes."

Those two sentences mean the same thing.

Now your version:

Python:
"What happens if we remove the GPS compensation?"

Waiter:
"So you're asserting that removing the compensation will make everything perfect."

Python:
"No."

So, Python is lying, like always. Yes, he is
asserting, and he is quoting 2 idiots
from CERN asserting the same - to demonstrate
that any brainwashed by The Shit idiot
is asserting perfect clocks to be
desynchronizing clocks.


His moronic lies won't change anything.
In the real world his worshiped "uncompensated
atomic clocks" have no more significance than
uncompensated pendulums.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

Still no quote.

But this is much more interesting:

"uncompensated atomic clocks have no more significance than uncompensated pendulums."

Actually, uncompensated pendulums have enormous experimental significance.

Suppose a pendulum clock changes its rate when its temperature changes.

An engineer may compensate for thermal expansion so that the clock
continues to keep the same time.

Fine.

But how do we discover the temperature effect in the first place?

Precisely by observing the uncompensated pendulum.

We vary the temperature, measure the resulting rate change, establish the relation, and then design a compensation for it.

After compensation, the clock may keep an almost constant rate.

Pointing to the compensated clock and saying

"Look! Its rate doesn't change with temperature!"

would obviously not demonstrate that temperature has no physical effect on
the uncompensated pendulum.

It would demonstrate that the compensation works.

The same applies to changes in local gravitational acceleration. Move a pendulum clock to a place where g differs and its rate changes. One can compensate or recalibrate it if one wants a useful timekeeping instrument.

But the uncompensated rate change is not "meaningless".

It is the physical phenomenon being measured.

That distinction is exactly the issue here.

There are two different questions:

1. How should an operational clock be calibrated so that it realizes the chosen time scale?

2. How does the underlying physical oscillator behave when placed under different physical conditions?

For the first question, compensation is desirable.

For the second, removing the compensation is essential, because the compensation would otherwise mask the effect we are trying to measure.

So your pendulum analogy is excellent.

It just leads to the opposite conclusion.

An uncompensated pendulum is not a useless object when studying how
pendulums behave.

It is the experiment.

Likewise, comparing atomic clocks without applying the particular rate correction under investigation is not an attempt to create a "perfect
clock".

It is how one tests whether the physical rate difference that motivated
the correction actually exists.

And this still has nothing to do with my supposedly claiming that removing compensation would make clocks "perfect".

If I made that assertion, quote it.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/28/2026 4:08 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

Still no quote.

But this is much more interesting:

"uncompensated atomic clocks have no more significance than
uncompensated pendulums."

Actually, uncompensated pendulums have enormous experimental significance.

Sure, they have enormous significance
in your mad religion - since they're
the core of your liturgy. Outside of
your mad church they have no, since
(as anyone can check in GPS) they're
unusable for serious measurements.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

You are confusing two entirely different uses of an instrument.

An uncompensated pendulum clock may be unsuitable for maintaining a common time scale under changing physical conditions.

That does not make it unsuitable for measuring how those conditions affect
its rate.

Quite the opposite.

For a simple pendulum, in the small-angle approximation:

T = 2-CreU(L/g).

Change g, and its period changes.

If you want a clock that keeps the same time under different conditions,
you compensate or recalibrate it.

If you want to measure the effect of changing g on the pendulum, you deliberately observe its uncompensated behavior.

Calling that behavior "unusable for serious measurements" would amount to declaring the physical phenomenon unmeasurable because it makes the
instrument unsuitable as a reference clock.

The distinction is elementary:

A compensated pendulum can be a better timekeeper.

An uncompensated pendulum can be a better experimental probe of the effect being compensated.

And the same distinction applies to atomic clocks.

The purpose of comparing their underlying rates is not to operate GPS
without its necessary engineering.

It is to determine which physical rate differences that engineering must account for.

You keep pointing to GPS as a system that successfully maintains a common
time scale.

Nobody disputes that.

But a successfully compensated system cannot, merely by displaying
agreement, establish that the uncompensated physical rates were equal.

You can repeat "religion" and "liturgy" as often as you like.

They are not measurements.

So here is the question again, now in your own terms:

**How do you experimentally determine that a particular clock-rate compensation is necessary, and how large it must be, without measuring the physical rate difference it compensates for?**
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/28/2026 4:20 PM, Python wrote:

You are confusing two entirely different uses of an instrument.

An uncompensated pendulum clock may be unsuitable for maintaining a
common time scale under changing physical conditions.

And so is your atomic clock. Anyone can check
in GPS.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Exactly, Maciej.

That's the point.

An uncompensated pendulum may be unsuitable as a time standard because its rate changes when its physical conditions change.

An uncompensated atomic clock may likewise be unsuitable for maintaining a common time scale when its physical conditions change.

And you have just explicitly agreed with that:

"And so is your atomic clock. Anyone can check in GPS."

Good.

Then the interesting question is WHY it is unsuitable.

How much does its rate change?

Under which physical conditions?

And how was that rate difference determined?

Your pendulum analogy is actually excellent here.

A pendulum can be a bad time standard because its rate depends on g, its effective length, temperature, etc.

Those dependencies don't become meaningless because we compensate for
them.

On the contrary: to design the compensation, we first have to measure and understand them.

And now there is an even more interesting point about atomic clocks.

Relativity says nothing specifically about atomic clocks.

There is no "cesium clock correction" hidden somewhere in Einstein's equations.

The relativistic prediction is derived from the clocks' motion and gravitational environment, independently of whether the clock mechanism
uses cesium, rubidium, hydrogen masers, or something else.

Then engineers put actual atomic clocks into those conditions.

And the required rate correction has the predicted magnitude.

That raises a very simple question.

If the relativistic calculation is merely "The Shit", unrelated to how
real clocks physically behave, how does a theory containing no model of
the internal mechanism of an atomic clock get the required clock-rate correction right?

It cannot be because someone simply defined t'=t afterward.

The correction has a magnitude and a sign.

Apply the wrong magnitude and the clocks drift.

Apply the wrong sign and they drift even faster.

So there is an empirical number here.

You can reject Einstein's interpretation if you want.

But then you still have to explain why a calculation based on relative
motion and gravitational potential predicts the rate adjustment required
by physical atomic clocks whose internal mechanism does not appear
anywhere in that calculation.

This is exactly why the uncompensated behavior matters.

If the uncompensated clocks really gave t'=t, there would be no
corresponding systematic rate difference to compensate.

If they don't, and the predicted correction removes that systematic difference, then pointing at the corrected GPS clocks and saying "look,
t'=t" has the logic backwards.

Their agreement is what the correction was designed to achieve.

So let's forget Einstein, CERN and "religion" for a moment.

What is the measured uncompensated rate difference?

What correction is applied?

And why does a relativistic calculation that knows nothing about the construction of an atomic clock predict the right number?

That's not theology.

That's a rather interesting experimental fact.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/28/2026 11:28 PM, Python wrote:

Exactly, Maciej.

That's the point.

An uncompensated pendulum may be unsuitable as a time standard because
its rate changes when its physical conditions change.

An uncompensated atomic clock may likewise be unsuitable for maintaining
a common time scale when its physical conditions change.

And you have just explicitly agreed with that:

"And so is your atomic clock. Anyone can check in GPS."

Good.

Then the interesting question is WHY it is unsuitable.

Interesting for you, not for me. Want
a reason? Mrukving of mimaykas, for
sure.

How much does its rate change?

Under which physical conditions?

And how was that rate difference determined?

Your pendulum analogy is actually excellent here.

A pendulum can be a bad time standard because its rate depends on g, its effective length, temperature, etc.

Those dependencies don't become meaningless because we compensate for them.

On the contrary: to design the compensation, we first have to measure
and understand them.

And now there is an even more interesting point about atomic clocks.

Relativity says nothing specifically about atomic clocks.

There is no "cesium clock correction" hidden somewhere in Einstein's equations.

Right. That The Shit has predicted it - it's
an absurd lie, typical for a fanatic,
relativistic idiot. Oppositely, The Shit has
predicted they won't exist - and brainwashed
religious maniacs has tried to enforce its
mad prophecies with redefining a second
and announce their wannabe standard. With
no success. Of course.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Excellent. We finally have a precise claim:

"The Shit has predicted they won't exist."

Fine.

Show the equation.

Where, exactly, does Special Relativity predict that atomic clocks cannot exist?

Not "Einstein was an idiot".
Not "religious maniacs".
Not "mrukving of mimaykas".

The equation.

Because SR does not contain a model of cesium atoms, rubidium atoms,
hydrogen masers, or atomic clocks at all.

It tells you how elapsed proper time depends on a worldline.

And that's precisely what makes the experimental result interesting.

The relativistic calculation does not need to know whether the clock uses
a pendulum, cesium, rubidium, hydrogen, or some future mechanism.

Yet when sufficiently good clocks are put on different worldlines, their accumulated readings differ according to the relativistic prediction.

Your appeal to the definition of the second doesn't help either.

Defining the second using a particular atomic transition specifies a unit.

It cannot force two physical clocks following different trajectories to accumulate identical or different numbers of those units when they are
later compared.

Changing a definition does not reach inside the clocks and alter their oscillators.

And now recall where this discussion started.

You claimed that "sane people have measurements" giving:

t' = t.

GPS was your example.

Then you agreed that an uncompensated atomic clock is unsuitable for maintaining the GPS common time scale.

So we asked the obvious experimental question:

What does the uncompensated clock actually do?

Your answer is now that you aren't interested.

That's perfectly allowed.

But "I'm not interested in what the clock actually does" is a rather unfortunate position from which to lecture us about what the measurements show.

So again:

Where does SR predict that atomic clocks cannot exist?

And what do uncompensated atomic clocks actually measure?

Equations and measurements this time, please.

The mimaykas can wait.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/29/2026 10:48 AM, Python wrote:

Excellent. We finally have a precise claim:

"The Shit has predicted they won't exist."

Fine.

Show the equation.

Where, exactly, does Special Relativity predict that atomic clocks
cannot exist?

Not atomic clocks, their frame-dependent
corrections.
That's a direct consequence of The Holiest
Postulate - which is not an equation.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Ah, good. That's a significant correction.

So SR did NOT predict that atomic clocks "won't exist".

Your claim is now that SR predicts that their frame-dependent corrections won't exist.

Fine. That's much more precise.

And you say this is a direct consequence of "The Holiest Postulate".

Presumably you mean the principle of relativity.

But the principle of relativity does not say:

"Every measured quantity must have the same value in every inertial
frame."

If it did, SR would indeed collapse immediately.

Velocity is frame-dependent.

Momentum is frame-dependent.

Energy is frame-dependent.

Coordinate time between spatially separated events is frame-dependent.

None of that violates the principle of relativity.

What must retain its form are the physical laws, not the numerical values assigned by every frame to every quantity.

And proper time is particularly inconvenient for your argument, because SR gives it directly from the worldline.

So now please show the missing step.

How do you derive, from your "Holiest Postulate":

"frame-dependent clock corrections cannot exist"?

Not an insult.

Not "The Shit".

Not "mimaykas".

The logical implication.

Because this is especially interesting in the context of your own GPS
example.

You originally offered GPS as evidence that sane people measure:

t' = t.

Then you agreed that the system is engineered so that clocks under
different physical conditions maintain a common time scale.

Then you agreed that an uncompensated atomic clock would be unsuitable for doing that.

And now you tell us that SR predicts that the corresponding
frame-dependent correction cannot exist.

Excellent.

Then we have an exceptionally simple empirical question:

What correction is actually applied?

What sign does it have?

What magnitude does it have?

And what does an uncompensated clock do?

If SR really predicts that this correction cannot exist while engineers actually have to apply it, you have found a spectacular experimental falsification of SR.

No philosophy is required.

Just give us the predicted zero correction and the measured non-zero correction.

Conversely, if relativistic calculations predict the sign and magnitude of
the rate adjustment required to keep the clocks on the chosen common time scale, then your argument has a rather serious problem.

So this is progress.

We've gone from:

"SR predicted atomic clocks wouldn't exist"

to:

"No, SR predicts their frame-dependent corrections wouldn't exist."

Good.

Now all that's missing is the derivation and the measurement.

Which, inconveniently, are the two parts that turn an assertion into
physics.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/29/2026 4:53 PM, Python wrote:

Ah, good. That's a significant correction.

So SR did NOT predict that atomic clocks "won't exist".

Your claim is now that SR predicts that their frame-dependent
corrections won't exist.

Fine. That's much more precise.

And you say this is a direct consequence of "The Holiest Postulate".

Presumably you mean the principle of relativity.

But the principle of relativity does not say:

"Every measured quantity must have the same value in every inertial frame."

It doesn't indeed, but as for things like
frequency of Cs radiation it does say. So -
no frame dependent corrections on Cs clocks
should exist.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

No, Maciej. You're confusing two different statements.

The Cs transition frequency is a property of the atom measured in its own
rest frame.

SR does not say that every observer assigns the same coordinate frequency
to radiation from that atom. Quite the opposite: the relativistic Doppler effect exists.

Take two identical Cs clocks, A and B.

Synchronize them side by side. Leave A on Earth, send B on a high-speed
round trip, then bring B back next to A.

Locally, throughout the experiment, every Cs atom behaves according to
exactly the same atomic physics. Nobody needs a "moving-Cs correction" to
its internal transition frequency.

Nevertheless, when A and B are reunited, SR predicts that they can show different accumulated elapsed times:

Delta tau_A != Delta tau_B.

There is no contradiction whatsoever.

Same local Cs physics.
Different worldlines.
Different accumulated proper times.

So please show the SR postulate saying:

"Two Cs clocks following different worldlines must accumulate identical elapsed times."

You won't find it.

You're trying to derive t' = t from the invariance of local physics, when
SR says nothing of the sort.

Confusing "the same clock mechanism" with "the same accumulated proper
time" is essentially confusing the ruler with the path you measure with
it.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/29/2026 5:13 PM, Python wrote:

No, Maciej. You're confusing two different statements.

Yes, Python, you're lying, like always.

So please show the SR postulate saying:

"Two Cs clocks following different worldlines must accumulate identical elapsed times."

You won't find it.

Sure, and I didn't say anything like that.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 29/09/2026 |a 17:26, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/29/2026 5:13 PM, Python wrote:

No, Maciej. You're confusing two different statements.

Yes, Python, you're lying, like always.

So please show the SR postulate saying:

"Two Cs clocks following different worldlines must accumulate identical
elapsed times."

You won't find it.

Sure, and I didn't say anything like that.

Maciej, you really should start rereading your own posts before accusing
other people of lying.

At 16:59 you wrote:

"as for things like frequency of Cs radiation it does say. So - no frame dependent corrections on Cs clocks should exist."

I then asked you to show where SR says that Cs clocks following different worldlines must accumulate identical elapsed times.

And now, at 17:26:

"Sure, and I didn't say anything like that."

Exactly.

So let's keep this factual.

1. SR does not say that two Cs clocks following different worldlines must accumulate the same elapsed time.

2. The Cs transition frequency being locally the same does not imply that
two such clocks accumulate the same proper time.

3. Therefore the existence of a correction used to make those clocks
maintain a common coordinate time scale does not contradict the invariance
of the local Cs physics.

That is the distinction you keep avoiding.

You claimed that SR implies "no frame dependent corrections on Cs clocks should exist".

Fine.

Show the implication.

Because "I didn't say the clocks accumulate the same time" removes
precisely the premise you appeared to be using to reach that conclusion.

So before the next "you're lying", perhaps reread the previous three
messages.

At the moment I seem to be spending more time keeping your claims
synchronized than GPS spends keeping its clocks synchronized.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/29/2026 5:33 PM, Python wrote:

Le 29/09/2026 |a 17:26, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/29/2026 5:13 PM, Python wrote:

No, Maciej. You're confusing two different statements.

Yes, Python, you're lying, like always.

So please show the SR postulate saying:

"Two Cs clocks following different worldlines must accumulate
identical elapsed times."

You won't find it.

Sure, and I didn't say anything like that.

Maciej, you really should start rereading your own posts before accusing other people of lying.

At 16:59 you wrote:

"as for things like frequency of Cs radiation it does say. So - no frame dependent corrections on Cs clocks should exist."

I then asked you to show where SR says that Cs clocks following
different worldlines must accumulate identical elapsed times.

And now, at 17:26:

"Sure, and I didn't say anything like that."

Exactly.

So let's keep this factual.

1. SR does not say that two Cs clocks following different worldlines
must accumulate the same elapsed time.

2. The Cs transition frequency being locally the same does not imply
that two such clocks accumulate the same proper time.

3. Therefore the existence of a correction used to make those clocks maintain a common coordinate time scale does not contradict the > invariance of the local Cs physics.

Sorry, poor piece of shit, it definitely does.
And an opinion of an ignorant idiot wouldn't
count - even if it wasn't such an obvious lie.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

"It definitely does."

Then show it, Maciej.

You agree that identical Cs clocks on different worldlines can accumulate different proper times while obeying identical local physics.

Yet you claim this forbids frame-dependent corrections.

That's the missing step.

So far, instead of providing it, you've supplied:

"liar"
"ignorant idiot"
"poor piece of shit"

The ratio of insults to physics is becoming spectacular.

At this point, the abuse isn't strengthening your argument. It's
highlighting exactly where the argument ends.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/29/2026 6:08 PM, Python wrote:

"It definitely does."

Then show it, Maciej.

You agree that identical Cs clocks on different worldlines can
accumulate different proper times while obeying identical local physics.

No. I only agree that is what your mad Shit
is asserting. Being sane, of course - I don't
share at all its opinion of what is proper and
what is not.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Fair correction. You don't agree with it; you only agree that SR asserts
it.

So let's remove that ambiguity.

What do *you* predict?

Take two identical Cs clocks, initially together and synchronized. They
follow different worldlines and are eventually reunited.

Do they necessarily show the same elapsed time at reunion: yes or no?

No "mad Shit", no "proper/not proper", no terminology dispute.

Two clocks. Two readings.

Same or different?

For once, give the prediction before the insults.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/29/2026 6:25 PM, Python wrote:

Fair correction. You don't agree with it; you only agree that SR asserts
it.

So let's remove that ambiguity.

What do *you* predict?

Take two identical Cs clocks, initially together and synchronized. They follow different worldlines and are eventually reunited.

Unmaintained clocks will usually desynchronize,
no great wisdom to predict that.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Good. Then remove ordinary clock drift from the experiment.

Two ideal identical Cs clocks. No maintenance, no corrections, no
instrumental error. Initially together and synchronized, then different worldlines, then reunited.

Do their final readings depend on the worldlines?

If yes, tell us how.

If no, they must agree at reunion.

"Clocks usually desynchronize" is a truism, Maciej, not a physical
prediction.

The interesting part is predicting how much.

Relativity does that quantitatively, and experiments repeatedly find the measured difference within the experimental uncertainty.

Perhaps relativity has simply been getting extraordinarily lucky,
experiment after experiment.

If that's your explanation, fine.

But then give us your competing quantitative prediction.

Because "clocks desynchronize" has approximately the predictive content of "things happen."
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/29/2026 6:36 PM, Python wrote:

Good. Then remove ordinary clock drift from the experiment.

Two ideal identical Cs clocks. No maintenance, no corrections, no

And nobody is asserting that removing
the corrections will make things ideal.
Nonononononononono!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 09/29/2026 09:36 AM, Python wrote:

Good. Then remove ordinary clock drift from the experiment.

Two ideal identical Cs clocks. No maintenance, no corrections, no instrumental error. Initially together and synchronized, then different worldlines, then reunited.

Do their final readings depend on the worldlines?

If yes, tell us how.

If no, they must agree at reunion.

"Clocks usually desynchronize" is a truism, Maciej, not a physical prediction.

The interesting part is predicting how much.

Relativity does that quantitatively, and experiments repeatedly find the measured difference within the experimental uncertainty.

Perhaps relativity has simply been getting extraordinarily lucky,
experiment after experiment.

If that's your explanation, fine.

But then give us your competing quantitative prediction.

Because "clocks desynchronize" has approximately the predictive content
of "things happen."

Perhaps it helps if "clocks only slow or meet", that
clocks must meet to synchronize, and remain so
as they part.


There are a variety of forms of astronomy, optical astronomy,
radio astronomy, gravitational astronomy, with a variety of
notions of clocks, atomic clocks, quasar clocks, all somehow
in one universe where neither the cosmological principle nor
the time-reversibility have ever been falsified.

(And "multiple-worlds interpretation" is un-falsifiable thus
non-scientific.)


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 29/09/2026 |a 19:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/29/2026 6:36 PM, Python wrote:

Good. Then remove ordinary clock drift from the experiment.

Two ideal identical Cs clocks. No maintenance, no corrections, no

And nobody is asserting that removing
the corrections will make things ideal.
Nonononononononono!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maciej, this is getting boring.

You snipped my sentence precisely where I specified the idealized
experiment, then threw a "Nonononononononono!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" at the part
you left visible.

Nobody said "removing corrections makes a real clock ideal."

I explicitly asked you to consider *ideal identical clocks* so that
ordinary instrumental drift is removed from the question.

This is standard physics: isolate the effect being discussed.

Relativity gives a quantitative prediction for that effect, and real
clocks test it to finite experimental precision.

Your competing prediction so far is:

"clocks usually desynchronize."

That's not an alternative theory. It's a truism.

If you have a quantitative prediction, state it.

If all you have is selective snipping and "NONONONO!!!!", there's really nothing left to discuss.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/29/2026 11:43 PM, Python wrote:

Le 29/09/2026 |a 19:02, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/29/2026 6:36 PM, Python wrote:

Good. Then remove ordinary clock drift from the experiment.

Two ideal identical Cs clocks. No maintenance, no corrections, no

And nobody is asserting that removing
the corrections will make things ideal.
Nonononononononono!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maciej, this is getting boring.

You snipped my sentence precisely where I specified the idealized experiment, then threw a "Nonononononononono!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" at the part
you left visible.

Nobody said "removing corrections makes a real clock ideal."

I explicitly asked you to consider *ideal identical clocks* so that
ordinary instrumental drift is removed from the question.

This is standard physics: isolate the effect being discussed.

Yes, persuading that ideal clocks
are desynchronizing clocks is standard
of your moronic religion, we agree
about that.

Relativity gives a quantitative prediction for that effect, and real
clocks test it to finite experimental precision.

Your competing prediction so far is:

"clocks usually desynchronize."

That's not an alternative theory. It's a truism.

If you have a quantitative prediction, state it.

If all you have is selective snipping and "NONONONO!!!!", there's really nothing left to discuss.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity


A 'measurement' is an increment of energy or
momentum transfer.

Something that is not 'measured' generally
does not exist except as part of a 'waveform'.

The waveform can have a long or short 'frequency'
or 'wavelength'.

There is also something called a 'Fourier' transform,
which generally means that all curves can be summarized
as the addition of various 'waves' or sine or cosine
curves. At short 'wavelengths' or high 'frequencies'
the transfer can be in steps that are high in energy
or momentum, however there can be many finer and more
'steps' at lower frequencies or higher wavelengths.

This step nature of the increments is generally called
'quantum'. Or specific quantities for each step. There
can be many 'quanta' or 'particles' in a wave if it is
a 'Boson'. A 'Fermion' however obeys the 'Pauli Exclusion
Principle'. (In other words it is something like 'matter'
that 'takes up space'.) There are an array of different
'interpretations of quantum mechanics' that can be described
in different ways.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 1:03 AM, x3 wrote:

A 'measurement' is an increment of energy or
momentum transfer.

I'm applying a ruler to a table. Where is
this increment?
Ypur moronic religion is making complete
morons of you.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Fine, Maciej. Let's retire the terrifying word "ideal" before it causes another outbreak of exclamation marks.

Use real Cs clocks.

Relativity predicts a specific difference between their readings from
their trajectories and gravitational conditions. Experiments measure the difference. Prediction and measurement can then be compared
quantitatively.

Your contribution remains:

"clocks usually desynchronize."

Yes. Brilliant. Clocks sometimes disagree.

The physics begins one step later: by how much?

Relativity puts a number on it.

You keep putting adjectives on relativity.

Only one of those can be compared with an experiment.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 01:03, x3 a |-crit :

A 'measurement' is an increment of energy or
momentum transfer.

Something that is not 'measured' generally
does not exist except as part of a 'waveform'.

The waveform can have a long or short 'frequency'
or 'wavelength'.

There is also something called a 'Fourier' transform,
which generally means that all curves can be summarized
as the addition of various 'waves' or sine or cosine
curves. At short 'wavelengths' or high 'frequencies'
the transfer can be in steps that are high in energy
or momentum, however there can be many finer and more
'steps' at lower frequencies or higher wavelengths.

This step nature of the increments is generally called
'quantum'. Or specific quantities for each step. There
can be many 'quanta' or 'particles' in a wave if it is
a 'Boson'. A 'Fermion' however obeys the 'Pauli Exclusion
Principle'. (In other words it is something like 'matter'
that 'takes up space'.) There are an array of different
'interpretations of quantum mechanics' that can be described
in different ways.

No.

Fourier decomposition does not imply quantization. A perfectly classical continuous signal can have a continuous Fourier spectrum.

Quantization comes from the physics, not from the Fourier transform.

Likewise, boson vs fermion is about quantum statistics, not "many
particles in a wave" versus "matter taking up space."

You have the right vocabulary, but the arrows connecting it are largely imaginary.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 9:53 AM, Python wrote:

Fine, Maciej. Let's retire the terrifying word "ideal" before it causes another outbreak of exclamation marks.

Use real Cs clocks.

Relativity predicts a specific difference between their readings from
their trajectories and gravitational conditions. Experiments measure the > difference. Prediction and measurement can then be compared

quantitatively.

Sure, the REAL Cs clocks measure t'=t.
Common sense has been warning the idiot.

If your "PEFRFECT!!! IDEAL!!!!" screams
were taken seriously - the Shit's prophecies
would be fulfilled. But you've never had
any real chance for that.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

No, Maciej.

REAL atomic clocks do not simply "measure t'=t".

NIST explicitly reports that atomic-clock experiments confirm the
relativistic rate differences.

For GPS, the predicted effects are about:

SR: -7 microseconds/day
GR: +45 microseconds/day
net: +38 microseconds/day

And the real clocks behave accordingly.

So we have finally progressed beyond your previous prediction:

"clocks desynchronize."

Now your prediction is:

"t'=t."

Excellent. That's at least falsifiable.

Unfortunately, the clocks didn't get the memo.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 10:40 AM, Python wrote:

No, Maciej.

REAL atomic clocks do not simply "measure t'=t".

Not simply - but they do.
Common sense has been warning the idiot.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

"Not simply -- but they do."

Ah. The "not simply" is doing quite a lot of work there.

Do real Cs clocks under different relativistic conditions accumulate
different raw readings before correction: yes or no?

If yes, "t'=t" is not what the clocks measured.

It's what you obtained after accounting for the difference.

Calling the corrected agreement "the measurement" and the measured
difference "the correction" is a lovely method.

First correct the clocks by the amount relativity predicts.

Then observe that the corrected clocks agree.

Then announce that relativity was wrong all along.

Common sense must be exhausted.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 10:57 AM, Python wrote:

"Not simply -- but they do."

Ah. The "not simply" is doing quite a lot of work there.

No, poor piece of shit, it doesn't.

Do real Cs clocks under different relativistic conditions accumulate different raw readings before correction: yes or no?

If yes, "t'=t" is not what the clocks measured.

Since when does calibrating measuring devices
disqualify their results? Did Newton use
raw pendulums or calibrated ones?





--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 11:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 10:57 AM, Python wrote:

"Not simply -- but they do."

Ah. The "not simply" is doing quite a lot of work there.

No, poor piece of shit, it doesn't.

Do real Cs clocks under different relativistic conditions accumulate
different raw readings before correction: yes or no?

If yes, "t'=t" is not what the clocks measured.

Since when does calibrating measuring devices
disqualify their results? Did Newton use
raw pendulums or calibrated ones?

Of course calibrated measurements are valid.

But calibration does not prove that the effect being calibrated out
doesn't exist.

If a pendulum's rate changes with temperature and you compensate it for temperature, the compensated pendulum may be a better clock.

It does not prove that temperature never affected the pendulum.

Likewise, if a Cs clock requires a predicted relativistic rate correction
to maintain a common time scale, applying that correction does not
demonstrate "t'=t" for the uncorrected clocks.

It demonstrates that the correction worked.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 11:32 AM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 11:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 10:57 AM, Python wrote:

"Not simply -- but they do."

Ah. The "not simply" is doing quite a lot of work there.

No, poor piece of shit, it doesn't.

Do real Cs clocks under different relativistic conditions accumulate
different raw readings before correction: yes or no?

If yes, "t'=t" is not what the clocks measured.

Since when does calibrating measuring devices
disqualify their results? Did Newton use
raw pendulums or calibrated ones?

Of course calibrated measurements are valid.

Of course, the measurement result is t'=t,
and it is valid.
Of course, clommon sense has been warning the idiot.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 11:41, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 11:32 AM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 11:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 10:57 AM, Python wrote:

"Not simply -- but they do."

Ah. The "not simply" is doing quite a lot of work there.

No, poor piece of shit, it doesn't.

Do real Cs clocks under different relativistic conditions accumulate
different raw readings before correction: yes or no?

If yes, "t'=t" is not what the clocks measured.

Since when does calibrating measuring devices
disqualify their results? Did Newton use
raw pendulums or calibrated ones?

Of course calibrated measurements are valid.

Of course, the measurement result is t'=t,
and it is valid.

Yes, Maciej. And here is the rather magnificent part.

The calibration needed to obtain your beloved "t'=t" is calculated using
the work of the very "idiot" you keep insulting: relativity.

So:

1. Relativity predicts the clock-rate offset.
2. The clocks exhibit the offset.
3. A relativistic correction is applied.
4. The corrected clocks maintain the common time scale.
5. Maciej announces: "See! t'=t! Relativity is wrong!"

Of course, clommon sense has been warning the idiot.

That's not common sense.

That's using Einstein to correct your clocks and then citing the corrected clocks against Einstein.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 12:34 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 11:41, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 11:32 AM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 11:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 10:57 AM, Python wrote:

"Not simply -- but they do."

Ah. The "not simply" is doing quite a lot of work there.

No, poor piece of shit, it doesn't.

Do real Cs clocks under different relativistic conditions
accumulate different raw readings before correction: yes or no?

If yes, "t'=t" is not what the clocks measured.

Since when does calibrating measuring devices
disqualify their results? Did Newton use
raw pendulums or calibrated ones?

Of course calibrated measurements are valid.

Of course, the measurement result is t'=t,
and it is valid.

Yes, Maciej. And here is the rather magnificent part.

The calibration needed to obtain your beloved "t'=t" is calculated using
the work of the very "idiot" you keep insulting: relativity.

Nope; it is calculated by a model assuming
ideal/perfect clocks to indicate t'=t, i.e.
definitely not The Shit of yours. I've told
you many times - sane people have their own
measurements and their own models.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 13:16, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 12:34 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 11:41, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 11:32 AM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 11:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 10:57 AM, Python wrote:

"Not simply -- but they do."

Ah. The "not simply" is doing quite a lot of work there.

No, poor piece of shit, it doesn't.

Do real Cs clocks under different relativistic conditions
accumulate different raw readings before correction: yes or no?

If yes, "t'=t" is not what the clocks measured.

Since when does calibrating measuring devices
disqualify their results? Did Newton use
raw pendulums or calibrated ones?

Of course calibrated measurements are valid.

Of course, the measurement result is t'=t,
and it is valid.

Yes, Maciej. And here is the rather magnificent part.

The calibration needed to obtain your beloved "t'=t" is calculated using
the work of the very "idiot" you keep insulting: relativity.

Nope; it is calculated by a model assuming
ideal/perfect clocks to indicate t'=t, i.e.
definitely not The Shit of yours. I've told
you many times - sane people have their own
measurements and their own models.

Let's compare the two "models", then.

Einstein:

GPS satellite clocks: about +38 microseconds/day relative to ground
clocks.

Maciej:

"Clocks usually desynchronize."
"People calibrate clocks."
"t'=t."
"Common sense."

Quite an impressive quantitative theory for an "information engineer" and
one of the best logicians Humanity has ever had.

Unfortunately, you're also wrong about the model actually used.

GPS does not start from a model saying that uncorrected perfect clocks naturally give t'=t.

It defines a common coordinate time scale and adjusts clock rates to
realize it -- including relativistic rate effects.

So Einstein supplies the number.

Engineers use the number.

The clocks behave according to the number.

And Maciej supplies "sane people have their own models", without supplying
the model or a number.

At this point, "things happen and people do stuff" would have
approximately the same predictive power, with considerably less typing.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 1:47 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 13:16, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 12:34 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 11:41, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 11:32 AM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 11:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 10:57 AM, Python wrote:

"Not simply -- but they do."

Ah. The "not simply" is doing quite a lot of work there.

No, poor piece of shit, it doesn't.

Do real Cs clocks under different relativistic conditions
accumulate different raw readings before correction: yes or no?

If yes, "t'=t" is not what the clocks measured.

Since when does calibrating measuring devices
disqualify their results? Did Newton use
raw pendulums or calibrated ones?

Of course calibrated measurements are valid.

Of course, the measurement result is t'=t,
and it is valid.

Yes, Maciej. And here is the rather magnificent part.

The calibration needed to obtain your beloved "t'=t" is calculated
using the work of the very "idiot" you keep insulting: relativity.

Nope; it is calculated by a model assuming
ideal/perfect-a clocks to indicate t'=t, i.e.
definitely not The Shit of yours. I've told
you many times - sane people have their own
measurements and their own models.

Let's compare the two "models", then.

Einstein:

GPS satellite clocks: about +38 microseconds/day relative to ground clocks.

Maciej:

"Clocks usually desynchronize."
"People calibrate clocks."
"t'=t."
"Common sense."

And the measurement results is: t'=t with
the accuracy of an acceptable error.
Common sense has been warning the idiot.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 13:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 1:47 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 13:16, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 12:34 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 11:41, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 11:32 AM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 11:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 10:57 AM, Python wrote:

"Not simply -- but they do."

Ah. The "not simply" is doing quite a lot of work there.

No, poor piece of shit, it doesn't.

Do real Cs clocks under different relativistic conditions
accumulate different raw readings before correction: yes or no? >>>>>>>>
If yes, "t'=t" is not what the clocks measured.

Since when does calibrating measuring devices
disqualify their results? Did Newton use
raw pendulums or calibrated ones?

Of course calibrated measurements are valid.

Of course, the measurement result is t'=t,
and it is valid.

Yes, Maciej. And here is the rather magnificent part.

The calibration needed to obtain your beloved "t'=t" is calculated
using the work of the very "idiot" you keep insulting: relativity.

Nope; it is calculated by a model assuming
ideal/perfect-a clocks to indicate t'=t, i.e.
definitely not The Shit of yours. I've told
you many times - sane people have their own
measurements and their own models.

Let's compare the two "models", then.

Einstein:

GPS satellite clocks: about +38 microseconds/day relative to ground clocks. >>
Maciej:

"Clocks usually desynchronize."
"People calibrate clocks."
"t'=t."
"Common sense."

And the measurement results is: t'=t with
the accuracy of an acceptable error.
Common sense has been warning the idiot.

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej.

The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* the compensating adjustment:

Einstein: about +38 microseconds/day for a GPS satellite clock relative to
an Earth clock.

The calibration is what engineers do *because of* that predicted
difference: adjust the satellite clock rate so that it realizes the chosen common GPS time scale.

The result after calibration is that the clocks agree within the required tolerance.

Those are three different statements:

prediction -> correction -> corrected agreement.

You keep taking the last one and pretending it disproves the first.

It doesn't.

If a model predicts a +38 error, you subtract 38, and the result is approximately zero, you have not measured the original error to be zero.

You have demonstrated that the correction works.

For an "information engineer", confusing input, transformation and output
is rather unfortunate.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej.

The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* the
compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej.

The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* the
compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

No, Maciej.

The question is much simpler:

Why 38 microseconds per day?

Why do GPS satellite clocks require a rate adjustment of approximately
that magnitude?

Relativity predicts the uncorrected rate difference.

The clocks are adjusted to compensate for it.

After adjustment, they agree with GPS time.

So explain your alternative model quantitatively:

Why 38?

Not "clocks need calibration."
Not "people calibrate devices."
Not "t'=t."
Not "common sense."

Why that number?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej.

The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* the
compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

No. That's not what I said.

Calibration does not "disturb the measurement result."

It deliberately changes the instrument's response so that it realizes the desired reference scale.

And that is precisely the point.

If an unadjusted clock would gain 38 microseconds/day, and you adjust its
rate to compensate for that gain, then its agreement after adjustment does
not show that the unadjusted gain was zero.

Quite the opposite: the interesting question is why that particular
adjustment was required.

So again:

Why 38 microseconds/day?

If your answer is that relativity has nothing to do with it, give the alternative calculation that produces the number.

"Calibration is legitimate" was never in dispute.
What the calibration is compensating for is.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 2:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej.

The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* the
compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement-a result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

No, Maciej.

The question is much simpler:

Why 38 microseconds per day?

Because an idiot has imagined. Really it is
0, with the precision of an acceptable error.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 2:25 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej.

The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* the
compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement-a result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

No. That's not what I said.

Calibration does not "disturb the measurement result."

What you said was that the theory's
prediction of the measurement result
is - for uncalibrated clocks only.
You're such an idiot.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej.

The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* the
compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement-a result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

No, Maciej.

The question is much simpler:

Why 38 microseconds per day?

Because an idiot has imagined. Really it is
0, with the precision of an acceptable error.

Interesting, Maciej.

Earlier, when asked what an uncompensated Cs clock in GPS orbit would show after 24 hours, your answer was:

"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

And you later explicitly accepted the distinction:

uncompensated clock: 24 h + 38 us
corrected operational clock: 24 h

Now suddenly:

"Really it is 0."

So before we discuss Einstein, calibration, common sense, or idiots,
perhaps you could reconcile Maciej with Maciej.

Is the uncompensated difference approximately +38 us/day, as you
previously conceded, or is it zero, as you claim today?

They cannot both be the measurement result.

And if you have changed your answer from +38 us/day to zero, what new
evidence or calculation made those 38 microseconds disappear?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:29, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:25 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej.

The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* the
compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement-a result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

No. That's not what I said.

Calibration does not "disturb the measurement result."

What you said was that the theory's
prediction of the measurement result
is - for uncalibrated clocks only.
You're such an idiot.

No, Maciej. Again you're changing the statement.

Relativity does not predict "what an uncalibrated clock measures" because
it has some theory of bad calibration.

It predicts the physical rate difference between clocks following
different worldlines and sitting at different gravitational potentials.

Then engineers can deliberately preset one clock's rate to compensate for
that predicted difference.

So:

physical prediction:
satellite clock rate differs from ground clock rate

engineering calibration:
preset the satellite clock to compensate for that difference

operational result:
the corrected clocks realize the same GPS time scale

A calibrated clock is not somehow outside the theory. Its calibration is simply another known contribution to its displayed reading.

And this makes your objection particularly strange, because you yourself previously conceded approximately +38 us/day for the uncompensated Cs
clock.

So which is it now?

Was your earlier +38 us/day wrong, or does the uncompensated physical rate difference exist?

Calling me an idiot doesn't perform the missing calculation.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 2:30 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej.

The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* the
compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement-a result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

No, Maciej.

The question is much simpler:

Why 38 microseconds per day?

Because an idiot has imagined. Really it is
0, with the precision of an acceptable-a error.

Interesting, Maciej.

Earlier, when asked what an uncompensated Cs clock in GPS orbit would
show after 24 hours, your answer was:

"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying
what really is.

What you said was that the theory's
prediction of the measurement result
is - for uncalibrated clocks only.
You're such an idiot.

No, Maciej. Again you're changing the statement.

Relativity does not predict "what an uncalibrated clock measures"
because it has some theory of bad calibration.

It predicts the physical rate difference between clocks following

You're lying, like always. https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
Clock's rate is only mentioned once.
What the idiot defined as time, what the idiot
was referring to and what the idiot was predicting
- were clock indications.

different worldlines and sitting at different gravitational potentials.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:30 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej.

The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* the
compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement-a result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

No, Maciej.

The question is much simpler:

Why 38 microseconds per day?

Because an idiot has imagined. Really it is
0, with the precision of an acceptable-a error.

Interesting, Maciej.

Earlier, when asked what an uncompensated Cs clock in GPS orbit would
show after 24 hours, your answer was:

"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying
what really is.

What you said was that the theory's
prediction of the measurement result
is - for uncalibrated clocks only.
You're such an idiot.

No, Maciej. Again you're changing the statement.

Relativity does not predict "what an uncalibrated clock measures"
because it has some theory of bad calibration.

It predicts the physical rate difference between clocks following

You're lying, like always. https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
Clock's rate is only mentioned once.
What the idiot defined as time, what the idiot
was referring to and what the idiot was predicting
- were clock indications.

different worldlines and sitting at different gravitational potentials.

"Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying what really is."

Excellent. You have just restated my distinction yourself.

What WOULD BE for the uncompensated clock, according to your own earlier answer:

+38 us/day, AFAIK

What REALLY IS for the operational, compensated GPS clock:

approximately 0 relative to the intended GPS time scale.

Yes. Exactly.

The whole question is what turns the former into the latter.

Calibration does not make the +38 us/day prediction false. It compensates
for it.

And your Einstein PDF doesn't rescue the argument either. Counting
occurrences of the English phrase "clock's rate" is not physics. A clock
rate is simply the rate of change of its indication with respect to the
chosen comparison time.

More importantly, you linked Einstein's 1905 SPECIAL-relativity paper
while we're discussing the roughly +38 us/day NET GPS effect, which
includes both the special-relativistic kinematic contribution and the general-relativistic gravitational contribution.

So we're back to the wonderfully simple question you keep avoiding:

You conceded that without compensation the clock WOULD gain about 38
us/day.

Why 38?

What quantitative theory of yours predicts that number?

"Really it is 0" merely describes the result AFTER engineers have
compensated the clock.

Subtracting the effect and obtaining zero is not evidence that the effect
was zero before you subtracted it.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 2:57 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:30 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej.

The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* the
compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement-a result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

No, Maciej.

The question is much simpler:

Why 38 microseconds per day?

Because an idiot has imagined. Really it is
0, with the precision of an acceptable-a error.

Interesting, Maciej.

Earlier, when asked what an uncompensated Cs clock in GPS orbit would
show after 24 hours, your answer was:

"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying
what really is.

What you said was that the theory's
prediction of the measurement result
is - for uncalibrated-a clocks only.
You're such an idiot.

No, Maciej. Again you're changing the statement.

Relativity does not predict "what an uncalibrated clock measures"
because it has some theory of bad calibration.

It predicts the physical rate difference between clocks following

You're lying, like always.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
Clock's rate is only mentioned once.
What the idiot defined as time, what the idiot
was referring to and what the idiot was predicting
- were clock indications.

different worldlines and sitting at different gravitational

potentials.

"Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying what really is."

Excellent. You have just restated my distinction yourself.

What WOULD BE for the uncompensated clock, according to your own earlier answer:

-a-a +38 us/day, AFAIK

What REALLY IS for the operational, compensated GPS clock:

-a-a approximately 0 relative to the intended GPS time scale.

Yes. Exactly.

The whole question is what turns the former into the latter.

Calibration does not make the +38 us/day prediction false.

Python, poor piece of shit.
I'm predicting a clock on the Moon will
elapse less time than a clock on Earth.
I scream: "TIME DILATION!!!! ON THE MOON!!!"
I send a pendulum.
Then I calibrate it. Was my prediction of
time dilation true or false?


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 15:09, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:57 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:30 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej.

The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* the >>>>>>>> compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement-a result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

No, Maciej.

The question is much simpler:

Why 38 microseconds per day?

Because an idiot has imagined. Really it is
0, with the precision of an acceptable-a error.

Interesting, Maciej.

Earlier, when asked what an uncompensated Cs clock in GPS orbit would >>>> show after 24 hours, your answer was:

"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying
what really is.

What you said was that the theory's
prediction of the measurement result
is - for uncalibrated-a clocks only.
You're such an idiot.

No, Maciej. Again you're changing the statement.

Relativity does not predict "what an uncalibrated clock measures"
because it has some theory of bad calibration.

It predicts the physical rate difference between clocks following

You're lying, like always.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
Clock's rate is only mentioned once.
What the idiot defined as time, what the idiot
was referring to and what the idiot was predicting
- were clock indications.

different worldlines and sitting at different gravitational

potentials.

"Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying what really is."

Excellent. You have just restated my distinction yourself.

What WOULD BE for the uncompensated clock, according to your own earlier
answer:

-a-a +38 us/day, AFAIK

What REALLY IS for the operational, compensated GPS clock:

-a-a approximately 0 relative to the intended GPS time scale.

Yes. Exactly.

The whole question is what turns the former into the latter.

Calibration does not make the +38 us/day prediction false.

Python, poor piece of shit.
I'm predicting a clock on the Moon will
elapse less time than a clock on Earth.
I scream: "TIME DILATION!!!! ON THE MOON!!!"
I send a pendulum.
Then I calibrate it. Was my prediction of
time dilation true or false?

Your pendulum example actually makes the distinction clearer.

Suppose I predict:

On the Moon, this unmodified pendulum will run at a different rate
because g is different.

I send it to the Moon.

It runs at the predicted different rate.

Then I change its length so that its period is one second again.

Does its final calibrated reading prove my original prediction false?

Obviously not. I deliberately modified the instrument to compensate for
the predicted effect.

But there is an even more important difference in your analogy.

For a pendulum, the change of rate is a known dynamical effect of the
clock mechanism:

T = 2 pi sqrt(L/g).

So I can calculate the lunar rate difference and calculate the
compensating change in L.

GPS works analogously at the logical level:

1. predict the rate difference;
2. calculate the required compensation;
3. apply it;
4. observe that the compensated clocks remain synchronized to the intended time scale.

So your Moon story doesn't help you. It asks exactly the same question
I've been asking:

What predicts the correction?

For the pendulum, Newtonian mechanics gives you the number.

For GPS, relativity gives you the relativistic contributions.

What does Maciej's model give?

So far:

Einstein: a number.
Newton: a number.
Maciej: "people calibrate clocks."

Calibration is not the prediction. It is what you do after you have a prediction.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 3:14 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 15:09, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:57 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:30 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej.

The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* the >>>>>>>>> compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement-a result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

No, Maciej.

The question is much simpler:

Why 38 microseconds per day?

Because an idiot has imagined. Really it is
0, with the precision of an acceptable-a error.

Interesting, Maciej.

Earlier, when asked what an uncompensated Cs clock in GPS orbit
would show after 24 hours, your answer was:

"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying
what really is.

What you said was that the theory's
prediction of the measurement result
is - for uncalibrated-a clocks only.
You're such an idiot.

No, Maciej. Again you're changing the statement.

Relativity does not predict "what an uncalibrated clock measures"
because it has some theory of bad calibration.

It predicts the physical rate difference between clocks following

You're lying, like always.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
Clock's rate is only mentioned once.
What the idiot defined as time, what the idiot
was referring to and what the idiot was predicting
- were clock indications.

different worldlines and sitting at different gravitational

potentials.

"Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying what really is."

Excellent. You have just restated my distinction yourself.

What WOULD BE for the uncompensated clock, according to your own
earlier answer:

-a-a-a +38 us/day, AFAIK

What REALLY IS for the operational, compensated GPS clock:

-a-a-a approximately 0 relative to the intended GPS time scale.

Yes. Exactly.

The whole question is what turns the former into the latter.

Calibration does not make the +38 us/day prediction false.

Python, poor piece of shit.
I'm predicting a clock on the Moon will
elapse less time than a clock on Earth.
I scream: "TIME DILATION!!!! ON THE MOON!!!"
I send a pendulum.
Then I calibrate it. Was my prediction of
time dilation true or false?

Your pendulum example actually makes the distinction clearer.

Suppose I predict:

-a-a On the Moon, this unmodified pendulum will run at a different rate
-a-a because g is different.

And suppose I predict "TIME DILATION!!!!
ON THE MOON!!!" and I send pendulums to
confirm my crap. Will you accept it as
your Holy Confirmation?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 15:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 3:14 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 15:09, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:57 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:30 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej.

The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* the >>>>>>>>>> compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement-a result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

No, Maciej.

The question is much simpler:

Why 38 microseconds per day?

Because an idiot has imagined. Really it is
0, with the precision of an acceptable-a error.

Interesting, Maciej.

Earlier, when asked what an uncompensated Cs clock in GPS orbit
would show after 24 hours, your answer was:

"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying
what really is.

What you said was that the theory's
prediction of the measurement result
is - for uncalibrated-a clocks only.
You're such an idiot.

No, Maciej. Again you're changing the statement.

Relativity does not predict "what an uncalibrated clock measures" >>>>> -a> because it has some theory of bad calibration.

It predicts the physical rate difference between clocks following >>>>>

You're lying, like always.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
Clock's rate is only mentioned once.
What the idiot defined as time, what the idiot
was referring to and what the idiot was predicting
- were clock indications.

different worldlines and sitting at different gravitational

potentials.

"Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying what really is."

Excellent. You have just restated my distinction yourself.

What WOULD BE for the uncompensated clock, according to your own
earlier answer:

-a-a-a +38 us/day, AFAIK

What REALLY IS for the operational, compensated GPS clock:

-a-a-a approximately 0 relative to the intended GPS time scale.

Yes. Exactly.

The whole question is what turns the former into the latter.

Calibration does not make the +38 us/day prediction false.

Python, poor piece of shit.
I'm predicting a clock on the Moon will
elapse less time than a clock on Earth.
I scream: "TIME DILATION!!!! ON THE MOON!!!"
I send a pendulum.
Then I calibrate it. Was my prediction of
time dilation true or false?

Your pendulum example actually makes the distinction clearer.

Suppose I predict:

-a-a On the Moon, this unmodified pendulum will run at a different rate
-a-a because g is different.

And suppose I predict "TIME DILATION!!!!
ON THE MOON!!!" and I send pendulums to
confirm my crap. Will you accept it as
your Holy Confirmation?

No, Maciej. I would conclude that you had designed a bad experiment.

If Newtonian mechanics predicts the pendulum's change from

T = 2 pi sqrt(L/g),

then observing exactly that change is evidence for the ordinary dependence
of a pendulum on g. It is not evidence for relativistic time dilation.

To test relativity, you need clocks whose predicted comparison
distinguishes the relativistic model from the relevant alternatives.

This is elementary experimental reasoning:

Model A predicts X.
Model B predicts Y.
Measurement gives X.

You don't get to replace that with:

Something changed.
Therefore TIME DILATION!!!!

And this diversion still hasn't answered the embarrassingly simple
question you have now avoided several times.

You previously conceded:

uncompensated GPS Cs clock: about +38 us/day.

So what predicts that number?

Relativity gives a quantitative answer.

Your pendulum on the Moon gives us another story about a completely
different physical mechanism.

Still no alternative calculation of the 38 us/day.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 4:27 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 15:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 3:14 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 15:09, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:57 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:30 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej.

The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* the >>>>>>>>>>> compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement-a result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

No, Maciej.

The question is much simpler:

Why 38 microseconds per day?

Because an idiot has imagined. Really it is
0, with the precision of an acceptable-a error.

Interesting, Maciej.

Earlier, when asked what an uncompensated Cs clock in GPS orbit >>>>>>> would show after 24 hours, your answer was:

"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying
what really is.

What you said was that the theory's
prediction of the measurement result
is - for uncalibrated-a clocks only.
You're such an idiot.

No, Maciej. Again you're changing the statement.

Relativity does not predict "what an uncalibrated clock measures" >>>>>> -a> because it has some theory of bad calibration.

It predicts the physical rate difference between clocks following >>>>>>

You're lying, like always.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
Clock's rate is only mentioned once.
What the idiot defined as time, what the idiot
was referring to and what the idiot was predicting
- were clock indications.

different worldlines and sitting at different gravitational

potentials.

"Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying what really is."

Excellent. You have just restated my distinction yourself.

What WOULD BE for the uncompensated clock, according to your own
earlier answer:

-a-a-a +38 us/day, AFAIK

What REALLY IS for the operational, compensated GPS clock:

-a-a-a approximately 0 relative to the intended GPS time scale.

Yes. Exactly.

The whole question is what turns the former into the latter.

Calibration does not make the +38 us/day prediction false.

Python, poor piece of shit.
I'm predicting a clock on the Moon will
elapse less time than a clock on Earth.
I scream: "TIME DILATION!!!! ON THE MOON!!!"
I send a pendulum.
Then I calibrate it. Was my prediction of
time dilation true or false?

Your pendulum example actually makes the distinction clearer.

Suppose I predict:

-a-a-a On the Moon, this unmodified pendulum will run at a different rate >>> -a-a-a because g is different.

And suppose I predict "TIME DILATION!!!!
ON THE MOON!!!" and I send pendulums to
confirm my crap. Will you accept it as
your Holy Confirmation?

No, Maciej. I would conclude that you had designed a bad experiment.

And the ONLY difference between this
case and your relativity confirmation -
is that you truly believe your
desynchronizing clocks to be perfect
and I don't truly believe pendulums to
be perfect.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 4:27 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 15:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 3:14 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 15:09, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:57 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:30 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* the >>>>>>>>>>>> compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement-a result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

No, Maciej.

The question is much simpler:

Why 38 microseconds per day?

Because an idiot has imagined. Really it is
0, with the precision of an acceptable-a error.

Interesting, Maciej.

Earlier, when asked what an uncompensated Cs clock in GPS orbit >>>>>>>> would show after 24 hours, your answer was:

"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying
what really is.

What you said was that the theory's
prediction of the measurement result
is - for uncalibrated-a clocks only.
You're such an idiot.

No, Maciej. Again you're changing the statement.

Relativity does not predict "what an uncalibrated clock measures" >>>>>>> -a> because it has some theory of bad calibration.

It predicts the physical rate difference between clocks following >>>>>>>

You're lying, like always.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
Clock's rate is only mentioned once.
What the idiot defined as time, what the idiot
was referring to and what the idiot was predicting
- were clock indications.

different worldlines and sitting at different gravitational >>>>>>> potentials.

"Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying what really is."

Excellent. You have just restated my distinction yourself.

What WOULD BE for the uncompensated clock, according to your own
earlier answer:

-a-a-a +38 us/day, AFAIK

What REALLY IS for the operational, compensated GPS clock:

-a-a-a approximately 0 relative to the intended GPS time scale.

Yes. Exactly.

The whole question is what turns the former into the latter.

Calibration does not make the +38 us/day prediction false.

Python, poor piece of shit.
I'm predicting a clock on the Moon will
elapse less time than a clock on Earth.
I scream: "TIME DILATION!!!! ON THE MOON!!!"
I send a pendulum.
Then I calibrate it. Was my prediction of
time dilation true or false?

Your pendulum example actually makes the distinction clearer.

Suppose I predict:

-a-a-a On the Moon, this unmodified pendulum will run at a different rate >>>> -a-a-a because g is different.

And suppose I predict "TIME DILATION!!!!
ON THE MOON!!!" and I send pendulums to
confirm my crap. Will you accept it as
your Holy Confirmation?

No, Maciej. I would conclude that you had designed a bad experiment.

And the ONLY difference between this
case and your relativity confirmation -
is that you truly believe your
desynchronizing clocks to be perfect
and I don't truly believe pendulums to
be perfect.

No. That's precisely the mistake.

Nobody needs to believe that Cs clocks are "perfect."

The difference is that the known behavior of the clock itself can be
modeled, measured and separated from the effect being tested.

With your pendulum:

T = 2 pi sqrt(L/g)

already predicts how changing local g changes the pendulum mechanism.

So observing that effect does not distinguish relativity from ordinary pendulum dynamics.

With atomic clocks, likewise, nobody says:

"The clock changed, therefore relativity!"

You characterize the clock, compare clocks under controlled conditions, calculate the relativistic contribution, and test whether the observed differential effect has the predicted magnitude and sign.

A clock can have noise, drift, systematic offsets and calibration
corrections. None of that makes it useless. Those effects have
uncertainties that can be measured.

That's metrology, not faith in "perfect clocks."

And GPS makes your argument especially awkward because you already
conceded the relevant fact:

uncompensated: about +38 us/day.

That is enormously larger than the timing accuracy required by GPS.

So once again:

What non-relativistic property of the Cs clock produces specifically about
+38 us/day in GPS orbit?

Give the model.
Give the calculation.
Give the predicted number.

If you can do that, we can compare explanations.

If you can't, then "the clocks aren't perfect" has exactly the same quantitative content as "things happen."
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 4:47 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 4:27 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 15:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 3:14 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 15:09, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:57 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:30 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* >>>>>>>>>>>>> the compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement-a result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

No, Maciej.

The question is much simpler:

Why 38 microseconds per day?

Because an idiot has imagined. Really it is
0, with the precision of an acceptable-a error.

Interesting, Maciej.

Earlier, when asked what an uncompensated Cs clock in GPS orbit >>>>>>>>> would show after 24 hours, your answer was:

"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying
what really is.

What you said was that the theory's
prediction of the measurement result
is - for uncalibrated-a clocks only.
You're such an idiot.

No, Maciej. Again you're changing the statement.

Relativity does not predict "what an uncalibrated clock

measures"

because it has some theory of bad calibration.

It predicts the physical rate difference between clocks

following

You're lying, like always.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
Clock's rate is only mentioned once.
What the idiot defined as time, what the idiot
was referring to and what the idiot was predicting
- were clock indications.

different worldlines and sitting at different gravitational >>>>>>>> potentials.

"Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying what really is."

Excellent. You have just restated my distinction yourself.

What WOULD BE for the uncompensated clock, according to your own >>>>>>> earlier answer:

-a-a-a +38 us/day, AFAIK

What REALLY IS for the operational, compensated GPS clock:

-a-a-a approximately 0 relative to the intended GPS time scale.

Yes. Exactly.

The whole question is what turns the former into the latter.

Calibration does not make the +38 us/day prediction false.

Python, poor piece of shit.
I'm predicting a clock on the Moon will
elapse less time than a clock on Earth.
I scream: "TIME DILATION!!!! ON THE MOON!!!"
I send a pendulum.
Then I calibrate it. Was my prediction of
time dilation true or false?

Your pendulum example actually makes the distinction clearer.

Suppose I predict:

-a-a-a On the Moon, this unmodified pendulum will run at a different rate >>>>> -a-a-a because g is different.

And suppose I predict "TIME DILATION!!!!
ON THE MOON!!!" and I send pendulums to
confirm my crap. Will you accept it as
your Holy Confirmation?

No, Maciej. I would conclude that you had designed a bad experiment.

And the ONLY difference between this
case and your relativity confirmation -
is that you truly believe your
desynchronizing-a clocks to be perfect
and I don't truly believe pendulums to
be perfect.

No. That's precisely the mistake.

Yes.>

Nobody needs to believe that Cs clocks are "perfect."

Nobody needs, but when you stop - The Shit
of Einstein will vanish with quiet "puff".



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 16:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 4:47 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 4:27 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 15:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 3:14 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 15:09, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:57 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:30 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement-a result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

No, Maciej.

The question is much simpler:

Why 38 microseconds per day?

Because an idiot has imagined. Really it is
0, with the precision of an acceptable-a error.

Interesting, Maciej.

Earlier, when asked what an uncompensated Cs clock in GPS orbit >>>>>>>>>> would show after 24 hours, your answer was:

"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying
what really is.

What you said was that the theory's
prediction of the measurement result
is - for uncalibrated-a clocks only.
You're such an idiot.

No, Maciej. Again you're changing the statement.

Relativity does not predict "what an uncalibrated clock >>>>>>>>> measures"
because it has some theory of bad calibration.

It predicts the physical rate difference between clocks >>>>>>>>> following

You're lying, like always.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf >>>>>>>>> Clock's rate is only mentioned once.
What the idiot defined as time, what the idiot
was referring to and what the idiot was predicting
- were clock indications.

different worldlines and sitting at different gravitational >>>>>>>>> potentials.

"Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying what really is." >>>>>>>>
Excellent. You have just restated my distinction yourself.

What WOULD BE for the uncompensated clock, according to your own >>>>>>>> earlier answer:

-a-a-a +38 us/day, AFAIK

What REALLY IS for the operational, compensated GPS clock:

-a-a-a approximately 0 relative to the intended GPS time scale. >>>>>>>>
Yes. Exactly.

The whole question is what turns the former into the latter.

Calibration does not make the +38 us/day prediction false.

Python, poor piece of shit.
I'm predicting a clock on the Moon will
elapse less time than a clock on Earth.
I scream: "TIME DILATION!!!! ON THE MOON!!!"
I send a pendulum.
Then I calibrate it. Was my prediction of
time dilation true or false?

Your pendulum example actually makes the distinction clearer.

Suppose I predict:

-a-a-a On the Moon, this unmodified pendulum will run at a different rate
-a-a-a because g is different.

And suppose I predict "TIME DILATION!!!!
ON THE MOON!!!" and I send pendulums to
confirm my crap. Will you accept it as
your Holy Confirmation?

No, Maciej. I would conclude that you had designed a bad experiment.

And the ONLY difference between this
case and your relativity confirmation -
is that you truly believe your
desynchronizing-a clocks to be perfect
and I don't truly believe pendulums to
be perfect.

No. That's precisely the mistake.

Yes.>

Nobody needs to believe that Cs clocks are "perfect."

Nobody needs, but when you stop - The Shit
of Einstein will vanish with quiet "puff".

The only quiet "puff" I keep observing is what happens to your argument whenever I ask:

Why 38 microseconds/day?

You already conceded that approximate figure for an uncompensated GPS Cs clock.

If it is merely an imperfection of the clock, then this should be easy:

What imperfection?

Why does it have that sign?

Why that magnitude?

Why does the required correction depend systematically on the satellite's motion and gravitational environment?

Relativity provides a quantitative calculation.

Your alternative explanation so far is:

clocks aren't perfect.

That's not a competing physical model, Maciej. It's a shrug with an
adjective.

So, once more:

Why 38 us/day?

*puff*
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 5:02 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 16:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 4:47 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 4:27 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 15:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 3:14 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 15:09, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:57 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:30 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement-a result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

No, Maciej.

The question is much simpler:

Why 38 microseconds per day?

Because an idiot has imagined. Really it is
0, with the precision of an acceptable-a error.

Interesting, Maciej.

Earlier, when asked what an uncompensated Cs clock in GPS >>>>>>>>>>> orbit would show after 24 hours, your answer was:

"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying
what really is.

What you said was that the theory's
prediction of the measurement result
is - for uncalibrated-a clocks only.
You're such an idiot.

No, Maciej. Again you're changing the statement.

Relativity does not predict "what an uncalibrated clock >>>>>>>>>> measures"
because it has some theory of bad calibration.

It predicts the physical rate difference between clocks >>>>>>>>>> following

You're lying, like always.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf >>>>>>>>>> Clock's rate is only mentioned once.
What the idiot defined as time, what the idiot
was referring to and what the idiot was predicting
- were clock indications.

different worldlines and sitting at different gravitational >>>>>>>>>> potentials.

"Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying what really is." >>>>>>>>>
Excellent. You have just restated my distinction yourself.

What WOULD BE for the uncompensated clock, according to your >>>>>>>>> own earlier answer:

-a-a-a +38 us/day, AFAIK

What REALLY IS for the operational, compensated GPS clock:

-a-a-a approximately 0 relative to the intended GPS time scale. >>>>>>>>>
Yes. Exactly.

The whole question is what turns the former into the latter. >>>>>>>>>
Calibration does not make the +38 us/day prediction false.

Python, poor piece of shit.
I'm predicting a clock on the Moon will
elapse less time than a clock on Earth.
I scream: "TIME DILATION!!!! ON THE MOON!!!"
I send a pendulum.
Then I calibrate it. Was my prediction of
time dilation true or false?

Your pendulum example actually makes the distinction clearer.

Suppose I predict:

-a-a-a On the Moon, this unmodified pendulum will run at a different >>>>>>> rate
-a-a-a because g is different.

And suppose I predict "TIME DILATION!!!!
ON THE MOON!!!" and I send pendulums to
confirm my crap. Will you accept it as
your Holy Confirmation?

No, Maciej. I would conclude that you had designed a bad experiment.

And the ONLY difference between this
case and your relativity confirmation -
is that you truly believe your
desynchronizing-a clocks to be perfect
and I don't truly believe pendulums to
be perfect.

No. That's precisely the mistake.

Yes.>

Nobody needs to believe that Cs clocks are "perfect."

Nobody needs, but when you stop - The Shit
of Einstein-a will vanish with quiet "puff".

The only quiet "puff" I keep observing is what happens to your argument whenever I ask:

-a-a Why 38 microseconds/day?

Because an idiot has imagined.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 17:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 5:02 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 16:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 4:47 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 4:27 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 15:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 3:14 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 15:09, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:57 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:30 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The prediction is about what the clocks would do *before* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement-a result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

No, Maciej.

The question is much simpler:

Why 38 microseconds per day?

Because an idiot has imagined. Really it is
0, with the precision of an acceptable-a error.

Interesting, Maciej.

Earlier, when asked what an uncompensated Cs clock in GPS >>>>>>>>>>>> orbit would show after 24 hours, your answer was:

"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying
what really is.

What you said was that the theory's
prediction of the measurement result
is - for uncalibrated-a clocks only.
You're such an idiot.

No, Maciej. Again you're changing the statement.

Relativity does not predict "what an uncalibrated clock >>>>>>>>>>> measures"
because it has some theory of bad calibration.

It predicts the physical rate difference between clocks >>>>>>>>>>> following

You're lying, like always.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf >>>>>>>>>>> Clock's rate is only mentioned once.
What the idiot defined as time, what the idiot
was referring to and what the idiot was predicting
- were clock indications.

different worldlines and sitting at different gravitational >>>>>>>>>>> potentials.

"Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying what really is." >>>>>>>>>>
Excellent. You have just restated my distinction yourself. >>>>>>>>>>
What WOULD BE for the uncompensated clock, according to your >>>>>>>>>> own earlier answer:

-a-a-a +38 us/day, AFAIK

What REALLY IS for the operational, compensated GPS clock: >>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a approximately 0 relative to the intended GPS time scale. >>>>>>>>>>
Yes. Exactly.

The whole question is what turns the former into the latter. >>>>>>>>>>
Calibration does not make the +38 us/day prediction false. >>>>>>>>>

Python, poor piece of shit.
I'm predicting a clock on the Moon will
elapse less time than a clock on Earth.
I scream: "TIME DILATION!!!! ON THE MOON!!!"
I send a pendulum.
Then I calibrate it. Was my prediction of
time dilation true or false?

Your pendulum example actually makes the distinction clearer.

Suppose I predict:

-a-a-a On the Moon, this unmodified pendulum will run at a different >>>>>>>> rate
-a-a-a because g is different.

And suppose I predict "TIME DILATION!!!!
ON THE MOON!!!" and I send pendulums to
confirm my crap. Will you accept it as
your Holy Confirmation?

No, Maciej. I would conclude that you had designed a bad experiment. >>>>>

And the ONLY difference between this
case and your relativity confirmation -
is that you truly believe your
desynchronizing-a clocks to be perfect
and I don't truly believe pendulums to
be perfect.

No. That's precisely the mistake.

Yes.>

Nobody needs to believe that Cs clocks are "perfect."

Nobody needs, but when you stop - The Shit
of Einstein-a will vanish with quiet "puff".

The only quiet "puff" I keep observing is what happens to your argument
whenever I ask:

-a-a Why 38 microseconds/day?

Because an idiot has imagined.

Ah. So "+38 us/day" exists because "an idiot imagined it."

That leaves us with a fascinating physical mechanism, Maciej.

Einstein died in 1955.

GPS did not exist.

He never wrote "+38 us/day for GPS." He wrote equations.

Decades later, people inserted the actual parameters of GPS orbits into
those equations and obtained approximately:

gravitational: +45 us/day
kinematic: -7 us/day
-----------
net: +38 us/day

And, inconveniently, uncompensated clocks behave accordingly rCo something
you yourself previously conceded:

"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

So perhaps the satellites are in telepathic communication with a dead physicist.

But Einstein's paranormal abilities appear considerably more impressive
than that, because this isn't just GPS.

Put atomic clocks on different trajectories, at different velocities and gravitational potentials, and relativity predicts DIFFERENT shifts.

And the clocks don't all stubbornly produce Einstein's favorite imaginary "+38".

They exhibit the corresponding different effects.

Gravity Probe A did it with a hydrogen maser on a rocket.

The Galileo satellites accidentally placed in eccentric orbits provided an especially amusing case: as their altitude and velocity varied
periodically around the orbit, their clock rates exhibited the
corresponding periodic relativistic variation.

Apparently Einstein's ghost was not only talking to the clocks but continuously tracking their orbital positions and whispering updated
errors into them.

And then we arrive at your favorite restaurant.

The waiter brings a bill $38 too high.

Relativity says:

"There will be a $38 excess."

The waiter subtracts $38.

You inspect the corrected bill:

"Aha! The error is ZERO!
Your $38 was imaginary!"

Yes, Maciej.

That's what subtracting $38 does.

And when asked why precisely $38 had to be subtracted, your competing
theory is:

"Bills aren't perfect."

The same problem destroys your pendulum analogy.

Nobody says:

"The pendulum changed rate, therefore TIME DILATION!"

Newtonian mechanics gives

T = 2 pi sqrt(L/g)

and quantitatively predicts how the pendulum mechanism responds to g.

That mechanism can therefore be distinguished from another predicted
effect.

Likewise, nobody needs atomic clocks to be "perfect." Their noise, drift, systematic effects and environmental sensitivities are characterized experimentally. That's called metrology.

So after this rather long tour through imperfect clocks, pendulums, calibration, common sense, holy confirmations and Einstein's posthumous telepathic control of satellites, we are still exactly where we started.

You conceded:

uncompensated GPS Cs clock:
approximately +38 us/day.

Relativity quantitatively explains why.

Change the orbit and relativity predicts another number.

Experiments with clocks in other configurations test those other
predictions.

Your alternative model so far predicts:

"clocks aren't perfect"
"people calibrate them"
"things happen"
"Einstein imagined it"

So here's the question once again:

Why 38 us/day?

Give the alternative physical mechanism.

Give its equation.

Calculate the sign.

Calculate the magnitude.

And preferably make it work for the other clock experiments too.

Until then, "an idiot imagined it" has slightly less predictive power than
the dead physicist's equations.

Which must be rather frustrating. :-)

Maciej: *puff*
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 5:34 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 17:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 5:02 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 16:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 4:47 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 16:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 4:27 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 15:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 3:14 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 15:09, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:57 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:47, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:30 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 2:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 14:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/30/2026 2:03 PM, Python wrote:

You're conflating prediction with calibration, Maciej. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The prediction is about what the clocks would do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *before* the compensating adjustment:

So, calibration of devices is disturbing the
measurement-a result, poor piece of shit?
Really? Since when?

No, Maciej.

The question is much simpler:

Why 38 microseconds per day?

Because an idiot has imagined. Really it is
0, with the precision of an acceptable-a error.

Interesting, Maciej.

Earlier, when asked what an uncompensated Cs clock in GPS >>>>>>>>>>>>> orbit would show after 24 hours, your answer was:

"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying
what really is.

What you said was that the theory's
prediction of the measurement result
is - for uncalibrated-a clocks only.
You're such an idiot.

No, Maciej. Again you're changing the statement.

Relativity does not predict "what an uncalibrated clock >>>>>>>>>>>> measures"
because it has some theory of bad calibration.

It predicts the physical rate difference between clocks >>>>>>>>>>>> following

You're lying, like always.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>> Clock's rate is only mentioned once.
What the idiot defined as time, what the idiot
was referring to and what the idiot was predicting
- were clock indications.

different worldlines and sitting at different

gravitational potentials.

"Earlier I said what would be, now I'm saying what really is." >>>>>>>>>>>
Excellent. You have just restated my distinction yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>
What WOULD BE for the uncompensated clock, according to your >>>>>>>>>>> own earlier answer:

-a-a-a +38 us/day, AFAIK

What REALLY IS for the operational, compensated GPS clock: >>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a approximately 0 relative to the intended GPS time scale. >>>>>>>>>>>
Yes. Exactly.

The whole question is what turns the former into the latter. >>>>>>>>>>>
Calibration does not make the +38 us/day prediction false. >>>>>>>>>>

Python, poor piece of shit.
I'm predicting a clock on the Moon will
elapse less time than a clock on Earth.
I scream: "TIME DILATION!!!! ON THE MOON!!!"
I send a pendulum.
Then I calibrate it. Was my prediction of
time dilation true or false?

Your pendulum example actually makes the distinction clearer. >>>>>>>>>
Suppose I predict:

-a-a-a On the Moon, this unmodified pendulum will run at a
different rate
-a-a-a because g is different.

And suppose I predict "TIME DILATION!!!!
ON THE MOON!!!" and I send pendulums to
confirm my crap. Will you accept it as
your Holy Confirmation?

No, Maciej. I would conclude that you had designed a bad experiment. >>>>>>

And the ONLY difference between this
case and your relativity confirmation -
is that you truly believe your
desynchronizing-a clocks to be perfect
and I don't truly believe pendulums to
be perfect.

No. That's precisely the mistake.

Yes.>

Nobody needs to believe that Cs clocks are "perfect."

Nobody needs, but when you stop - The Shit
of Einstein-a will vanish with quiet "puff".

The only quiet "puff" I keep observing is what happens to your
argument whenever I ask:

-a-a-a Why 38 microseconds/day?

Because an idiot has imagined.

Ah. So "+38 us/day" exists because "an idiot imagined it."

That leaves us with a fascinating physical mechanism, Maciej.

Einstein died in 1955.

GPS did not exist.

He never wrote "+38 us/day for GPS." He wrote equations.

Decades later, people inserted the actual parameters of GPS orbits into those equations and obtained approximately:

-a-a gravitational:-a +45 us/day
-a-a kinematic:-a-a-a-a-a-a -7 us/day
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a -----------
-a-a net:-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a +38 us/day

And, inconveniently, uncompensated clocks behave accordingly rCo something you yourself previously conceded:

-a-a "Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

So perhaps the satellites are in telepathic communication with a dead physicist.

But Einstein's paranormal abilities appear considerably more impressive
than that, because this isn't just GPS.

Put atomic clocks on different trajectories, at different velocities and gravitational potentials, and relativity predicts DIFFERENT shifts.

And the clocks don't all stubbornly produce Einstein's favorite
imaginary "+38".

They exhibit the corresponding different effects.

Gravity Probe A did it with a hydrogen maser on a rocket.

The Galileo satellites accidentally placed in eccentric orbits provided
an especially amusing case: as their altitude and velocity varied periodically around the orbit, their clock rates exhibited the
corresponding periodic relativistic variation.

Apparently Einstein's ghost was not only talking to the clocks but continuously tracking their orbital positions and whispering updated
errors into them.

And then we arrive at your favorite restaurant.

The waiter brings a bill $38 too high.

Relativity says:

-a-a "There will be a $38 excess."

The waiter subtracts $38.

You inspect the corrected bill:

-a-a "Aha! The error is ZERO!
-a-a-a Your $38 was imaginary!"

Yes, Maciej.

That's what subtracting $38 does.

And when asked why precisely $38 had to be subtracted, your competing
theory is:

-a-a "Bills aren't perfect."

The same problem destroys your pendulum analogy.

Nobody says:

-a-a "The pendulum changed rate, therefore TIME DILATION!"

Newtonian mechanics gives

-a-a T = 2 pi sqrt(L/g)

and quantitatively predicts how the pendulum mechanism responds to g.

That mechanism can therefore be distinguished from another predicted
effect.

Likewise, nobody needs atomic clocks to be "perfect." Their noise,
drift, systematic effects and environmental sensitivities are
characterized experimentally. That's called metrology.

So after this rather long tour through imperfect clocks, pendulums, calibration, common sense, holy confirmations and Einstein's posthumous telepathic control of satellites, we are still exactly where we started.

You conceded:

-a-a uncompensated GPS Cs clock:
-a-a approximately +38 us/day.

Relativity quantitatively explains why.

Change the orbit and relativity predicts another number.

Experiments with clocks in other configurations test those other predictions.

You can always make clocks fitting any
predictions about clocks, poor piece of
shit.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 17:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
..

You can always make clocks fitting any
predictions about clocks, poor piece of
shit.

Ah, excellent.

We have progressed from:

"clocks aren't perfect"

to:

"you can make clocks fit any prediction."

So what about the early GPS tests with uncompensated clocks, Maciej?

Were those clocks deliberately manufactured to drift by the
relativistically predicted amount too?

A plot, presumably? :-)

And Galileo 5 and 6 were accidentally placed into eccentric orbits, yet
their clocks showed the corresponding periodic relativistic shift.

So the conspiracy even anticipated launch accidents.

Einstein's ghost, intelligent clocks, clairvoyant engineers...

Anything except an equation, apparently.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 5:54 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 17:51, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
..

You can always make clocks fitting any
predictions about clocks, poor piece of
shit.

Ah, excellent.

We have progressed from:

-a-a "clocks aren't perfect"

to:

-a-a "you can make clocks fit any prediction."

So what about the early GPS tests with uncompensated clocks, Maciej?

Were those clocks deliberately manufactured to drift by the
relativistically predicted amount too?

A plot, presumably? :-)

You're too stupid to plot anything.
Sane people or fanatic idiots - everyone
do measurements according to his (or her)
best knowledge. In the case of relativistic
idiots the best knowledge is The Shit of
Einstein.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thank you, Maciej.

I'm going to preserve this one:

"everyone do measurements according to his best knowledge."

and:

"in the case of relativistic [people] the best knowledge is
[Einstein's theory]."

After all these years, we finally agree:

Relativity = best knowledge.

I knew we'd get there eventually. :-)

No need to reply. I'm framing this one.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 5:59 PM, Python wrote:

Thank you, Maciej.

I'm going to preserve this one:

-a-a "everyone do measurements according to his best knowledge."

and:

-a-a "in the case of relativistic [people] the best knowledge is [Einstein's theory]."

After all these years, we finally agree:

-a-a Relativity = best knowledge.

For a brainwashed by The Shit
religious maniac - definitely.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 9/30/2026 5:54 PM, Python wrote:

A plot, presumably?

You're too stupid to plot anything.
Sane people or fanatic idiots - everyone do measurements according to
his (or her) best knowledge. In the case of relativistic idiots the best knowledge is The Shit of Einstein.

a big truth you just said but are unable to realize. All measurements
expects discretizing in entities and comparition. There is no measurement without discretize.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:12, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 5:59 PM, Python wrote:

Thank you, Maciej.

I'm going to preserve this one:

-a-a "everyone do measurements according to his best knowledge."

and:

-a-a "in the case of relativistic [people] the best knowledge is
[Einstein's theory]."

After all these years, we finally agree:

-a-a Relativity = best knowledge.

For a brainwashed by The Shit
religious maniac - definitely.

No religious faith required, Maciej.

I don't have to worship Einstein to notice that

predicted: about +38 us/day
observed: about +38 us/day

is a little more informative than your competing model:

"things happen."

That's the nice thing about quantitative physics.

The equations don't care whether I like Einstein.

Give me a non-relativistic model that predicts the measured clock shifts equally well and I'll happily compare it.

So far, however, Einstein gives numbers.

You give adjectives. :-)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 9/30/2026 5:59 PM, Python wrote:

Thank you, Maciej.
-a-a "in the case of relativistic [people] the best knowledge is
[Einstein's theory]."

After all these years, we finally agree:

-a-a Relativity = best knowledge.

For a brainwashed by The Shit religious maniac - definitely.

you are 100% correct, my friend - the gay Einstine had no brain to
understand that's not gravity, but the superposition of the amplitude probabilistic distribution of particles and the whole thing, according to
my theory entitled

*_"On the Divergent Matter of the Moving Koerpers Model"_*

hence, neither gay Einstine realized the simple thing about Gravity,
thought to be continued, that a measurement is all about discretization of entities and comparition. So true indeed. Fucking idiot, almost stupider
then gay Newtone, another pervert doing his family
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:25, Kile Batchinsky a |-crit :

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 9/30/2026 5:59 PM, Python wrote:

Thank you, Maciej.
-a-a "in the case of relativistic [people] the best knowledge is
[Einstein's theory]."

After all these years, we finally agree:

-a-a Relativity = best knowledge.

For a brainwashed by The Shit religious maniac - definitely.

you are 100% correct, my friend - the gay Einstine had no brain to understand that's not gravity, but the superposition of the amplitude probabilistic distribution of particles and the whole thing, according to
my theory entitled

*_"On the Divergent Matter of the Moving Koerpers Model"_*

hence, neither gay Einstine realized the simple thing about Gravity,
thought to be continued, that a measurement is all about discretization of entities and comparition. So true indeed. Fucking idiot, almost stupider then gay Newtone, another pervert doing his family

Ah, excellent.

"On the Divergent Matter of the Moving Koerpers Model"

At last.

Einstein had relativity.
Newton had mechanics.
Maxwell had electromagnetism.

And Kile has:

"superposition of the amplitude probabilistic
distribution of particles and the whole thing"

followed by:

"measurement is all about discretization
of entities and comparition."

I confess defeat.

No equation I know can compete with "and the whole thing."

And "comparition" may indeed be the missing concept that has eluded
physics for four centuries.

Please publish quickly, before the nym changes again.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 6:16 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:12, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 5:59 PM, Python wrote:

Thank you, Maciej.

I'm going to preserve this one:

-a-a-a "everyone do measurements according to his best knowledge."

and:

-a-a-a "in the case of relativistic [people] the best knowledge is
[Einstein's theory]."

After all these years, we finally agree:

-a-a-a Relativity = best knowledge.

For a brainwashed by The Shit
religious maniac - definitely.

No religious faith required, Maciej.

Wrong like always, Python.

I don't have to worship Einstein to notice that

-a-a predicted: about +38 us/day
-a-a observed:-a about +38 us/day

Too bad it's really 0 with the precision
of an acceptable error, and the clocks
measuring your +38us exist only in your
imagination.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:33, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 6:16 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:12, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 5:59 PM, Python wrote:

Thank you, Maciej.

I'm going to preserve this one:

-a-a-a "everyone do measurements according to his best knowledge."

and:

-a-a-a "in the case of relativistic [people] the best knowledge is
[Einstein's theory]."

After all these years, we finally agree:

-a-a-a Relativity = best knowledge.

For a brainwashed by The Shit
religious maniac - definitely.

No religious faith required, Maciej.

Wrong like always, Python.

I don't have to worship Einstein to notice that

-a-a predicted: about +38 us/day
-a-a observed:-a about +38 us/day

Too bad it's really 0 with the precision
of an acceptable error, and the clocks
measuring your +38us exist only in your
imagination.

Maciej, this is becoming wonderfully easy.

A few messages ago, YOU wrote:

"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

Now:

"the clocks measuring your +38us exist only
in your imagination."

So apparently my imagination has acquired the ability to edit your
previous posts. :-)

Which Maciej should I believe?

Maciej A:
"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

Maciej B:
"+38 us exists only in your imagination."

Please settle this dispute with yourself first.

I'll wait. :-)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 6:37 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:33, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 6:16 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:12, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 5:59 PM, Python wrote:

Thank you, Maciej.

I'm going to preserve this one:

-a-a-a "everyone do measurements according to his best knowledge."

and:

-a-a-a "in the case of relativistic [people] the best knowledge is
[Einstein's theory]."

After all these years, we finally agree:

-a-a-a Relativity = best knowledge.

For a brainwashed by The Shit
religious maniac - definitely.

No religious faith required, Maciej.

Wrong like always, Python.

I don't have to worship Einstein to notice that

-a-a-a predicted: about +38 us/day
-a-a-a observed:-a about +38 us/day

Too bad it's really 0 with the precision
of an acceptable error, and the clocks
measuring your +38us exist only in your
imagination.

Maciej, this is becoming wonderfully easy.

A few messages ago, YOU wrote:

-a-a "Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

WOULD BE.

-a-a "the clocks measuring your +38us exist only
-a-a-a in your imagination."

IS.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 09/30/2026 09:28 AM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:25, Kile Batchinsky a |-crit :

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 9/30/2026 5:59 PM, Python wrote:

Thank you, Maciej.
"in the case of relativistic [people] the best knowledge is
[Einstein's theory]."

After all these years, we finally agree:

Relativity = best knowledge.

For a brainwashed by The Shit religious maniac - definitely.

you are 100% correct, my friend - the gay Einstine had no brain to
understand that's not gravity, but the superposition of the amplitude
probabilistic distribution of particles and the whole thing, according
to my theory entitled

*_"On the Divergent Matter of the Moving Koerpers Model"_*

hence, neither gay Einstine realized the simple thing about Gravity,
thought to be continued, that a measurement is all about
discretization of entities and comparition. So true indeed. Fucking
idiot, almost stupider then gay Newtone, another pervert doing his family

Ah, excellent.

"On the Divergent Matter of the Moving Koerpers Model"

At last.

Einstein had relativity.
Newton had mechanics.
Maxwell had electromagnetism.

And Kile has:

"superposition of the amplitude probabilistic
distribution of particles and the whole thing"

followed by:

"measurement is all about discretization
of entities and comparition."

I confess defeat.

No equation I know can compete with "and the whole thing."

And "comparition" may indeed be the missing concept that has eluded
physics for four centuries.

Please publish quickly, before the nym changes again.

Stupid, "measurement" is interference.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 6:37 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:33, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 6:16 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:12, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 5:59 PM, Python wrote:

Thank you, Maciej.

I'm going to preserve this one:

-a-a-a "everyone do measurements according to his best knowledge." >>>>>>
and:

-a-a-a "in the case of relativistic [people] the best knowledge is >>>>>> [Einstein's theory]."

After all these years, we finally agree:

-a-a-a Relativity = best knowledge.

For a brainwashed by The Shit
religious maniac - definitely.

No religious faith required, Maciej.

Wrong like always, Python.

I don't have to worship Einstein to notice that

-a-a-a predicted: about +38 us/day
-a-a-a observed:-a about +38 us/day

Too bad it's really 0 with the precision
of an acceptable error, and the clocks
measuring your +38us exist only in your
imagination.

Maciej, this is becoming wonderfully easy.

A few messages ago, YOU wrote:

-a-a "Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

WOULD BE.

-a-a "the clocks measuring your +38us exist only
-a-a-a in your imagination."

IS.

Ah, "WOULD BE."

Would be IF WHAT, Maciej? :-)

Without relativistic compensation?

Then you have conceded the point again:

uncompensated: WOULD BE about +38 us/day
compensated: IS approximately 0

Except there's an additional problem for you:

The relativistic clock-rate shifts were not merely calculated as
hypothetical "WOULD BE" effects.

They have actually been MEASURED with uncompensated atomic clocks in
multiple experiments.

So:

Relativity: predicts a quantitative shift.
Experiment: measures the quantitative shift.
Engineers: compensate for the shift.
Maciej: points at the compensated result and says "ZERO!"

That's not a refutation.

That's discovering what "compensation" means. :-)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 7:08 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 6:37 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:33, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 6:16 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:12, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 5:59 PM, Python wrote:

Thank you, Maciej.

I'm going to preserve this one:

-a-a-a "everyone do measurements according to his best knowledge." >>>>>>>
and:

-a-a-a "in the case of relativistic [people] the best knowledge is >>>>>>> [Einstein's theory]."

After all these years, we finally agree:

-a-a-a Relativity = best knowledge.

For a brainwashed by The Shit
religious maniac - definitely.

No religious faith required, Maciej.

Wrong like always, Python.

I don't have to worship Einstein to notice that

-a-a-a predicted: about +38 us/day
-a-a-a observed:-a about +38 us/day

Too bad it's really 0 with the precision
of an acceptable error, and the clocks
measuring your +38us exist only in your
imagination.

Maciej, this is becoming wonderfully easy.

A few messages ago, YOU wrote:

-a-a-a "Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

WOULD BE.

-a-a-a "the clocks measuring your +38us exist only
-a-a-a-a in your imagination."

IS.

Ah, "WOULD BE."

Would be IF WHAT, Maciej? :-)

If your mad efforts of making your religious
idiocy something significant - succeeded.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 19:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 7:08 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 6:37 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:33, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 6:16 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:12, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 5:59 PM, Python wrote:

Thank you, Maciej.

I'm going to preserve this one:

-a-a-a "everyone do measurements according to his best knowledge." >>>>>>>>
and:

-a-a-a "in the case of relativistic [people] the best knowledge is >>>>>>>> [Einstein's theory]."

After all these years, we finally agree:

-a-a-a Relativity = best knowledge.

For a brainwashed by The Shit
religious maniac - definitely.

No religious faith required, Maciej.

Wrong like always, Python.

I don't have to worship Einstein to notice that

-a-a-a predicted: about +38 us/day
-a-a-a observed:-a about +38 us/day

Too bad it's really 0 with the precision
of an acceptable error, and the clocks
measuring your +38us exist only in your
imagination.

Maciej, this is becoming wonderfully easy.

A few messages ago, YOU wrote:

-a-a-a "Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

WOULD BE.

-a-a-a "the clocks measuring your +38us exist only
-a-a-a-a in your imagination."

IS.

Ah, "WOULD BE."

Would be IF WHAT, Maciej? :-)

If your mad efforts of making your religious
idiocy something significant - succeeded.

Fair enough, Maciej.

But you did give the right number:

"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

And relativistic clock shifts have actually been measured.

Let's say the evidence is doing its best.

For a "religious idiocy", relativity has an embarrassingly effective God:

experimental data.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 7:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 19:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 7:08 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:48, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 6:37 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:33, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 6:16 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 18:12, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 5:59 PM, Python wrote:

Thank you, Maciej.

I'm going to preserve this one:

-a-a-a "everyone do measurements according to his best knowledge." >>>>>>>>>
and:

-a-a-a "in the case of relativistic [people] the best knowledge is >>>>>>>>> [Einstein's theory]."

After all these years, we finally agree:

-a-a-a Relativity = best knowledge.

For a brainwashed by The Shit
religious maniac - definitely.

No religious faith required, Maciej.

Wrong like always, Python.

I don't have to worship Einstein to notice that

-a-a-a predicted: about +38 us/day
-a-a-a observed:-a about +38 us/day

Too bad it's really 0 with the precision
of an acceptable error, and the clocks
measuring your +38us exist only in your
imagination.

Maciej, this is becoming wonderfully easy.

A few messages ago, YOU wrote:

-a-a-a "Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

WOULD BE.

-a-a-a "the clocks measuring your +38us exist only
-a-a-a-a in your imagination."

IS.

Ah, "WOULD BE."

Would be IF WHAT, Maciej? :-)

If your mad efforts of making your religious
idiocy something significant - succeeded.

Fair enough, Maciej.
But you did give the right number:

-a-a "Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

Would be.

And relativistic clock shifts have actually been measured.

Unfortunately, time has also been measured.
And it is t'=t.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 19:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 7:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 19:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

..

And relativistic clock shifts have actually been measured.

Unfortunately, time has also been measured.
And it is t'=t.

"Unfortunately" is an interesting choice of word, Maciej.

What's unfortunate for your argument is that the clocks have actually been compared.

And without the appropriate corrections, they do NOT simply obey

t' = t.

They accumulate measurable differences whose magnitude depends on velocity
and gravitational potential.

That's precisely why the corrections exist.

So the unfortunate sequence for you remains:

relativity predicts a shift
clocks measure the shift
engineers compensate the shift
corrected clocks give t' = t

Pointing proudly at the last line doesn't erase the preceding three.

That's the unfortunate part... For you.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Python wrote:

And Kile has:

"superposition of the amplitude probabilistic
distribution of particles and the whole thing"

followed by:

"measurement is all about discretization
of entities and comparition."

I confess defeat.

gay Einstine had no concept of discretized anything, and like you, doesnt realize particles are discretized continuum, what a fool
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Ross Finlayson wrote:

Please publish quickly, before the nym changes again.

Stupid, "measurement" is interference.

in which country; yet another proof this guy is 100% unskilled and
uneducaated
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 7:38 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 19:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 7:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 19:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

..

And relativistic clock shifts have actually been measured.

Unfortunately, time has also been measured.
And it is t'=t.

"Unfortunately" is an interesting choice of word, Maciej.

What's unfortunate for your argument is that the clocks have actually
been compared.

And without the appropriate corrections, they do NOT simply obey

-a-a t' = t.

Right, to get the correct measurement
result you have to calibrate measurement
devices. May be a surprise for a brainwashed
religious maniac persuaded by a mad religion
that measurements are God's Voice happening
on its owm. Sane people know it.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/09/2026 |a 19:46, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 7:38 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 19:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 7:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 19:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

..

And relativistic clock shifts have actually been measured.

Unfortunately, time has also been measured.
And it is t'=t.

"Unfortunately" is an interesting choice of word, Maciej.

What's unfortunate for your argument is that the clocks have actually
been compared.

And without the appropriate corrections, they do NOT simply obey

-a-a t' = t.

Right, to get the correct measurement
result you have to calibrate measurement
devices. May be a surprise for a brainwashed
religious maniac persuaded by a mad religion
that measurements are God's Voice happening
on its owm. Sane people know it.

Ah, we're back to calibration.

Let's preserve the complete Maciej theory:

"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

then:

"Really it is 0."

and now:

"to get the correct measurement result
you have to calibrate measurement devices."

Exactly.

And here's the awkward detail:

The GPS relativistic compensation was calculated and planned BEFORE the satellites were launched.

So:

relativity predicts the orbital shift
-> about +38 us/day

engineers compensate for it in advance

satellites operate with the compensation

residual -> approximately 0

And *puff!* rCo Maciej points at the approximately zero residual and
concludes that the effect predicted and compensated for in advance never existed.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 7:49 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 19:46, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 7:38 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 19:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 7:21 PM, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 19:14, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

..

And relativistic clock shifts have actually been measured.

Unfortunately, time has also been measured.
And it is t'=t.

"Unfortunately" is an interesting choice of word, Maciej.

What's unfortunate for your argument is that the clocks have actually
been compared.

And without the appropriate corrections, they do NOT simply obey

-a-a-a t' = t.

Right, to get the correct measurement
result you have to calibrate measurement
devices. May be a surprise for a brainwashed
religious maniac persuaded by a mad religion
that measurements are God's Voice happening
on its owm. Sane people know it.

Ah, we're back to calibration.

Let's preserve the complete Maciej theory:

-a-a "Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

then:

-a-a "Really it is 0."

and now:

-a-a "to get the correct measurement result
-a-a-a you have to calibrate measurement devices."

Exactly.

And here's the awkward detail:

The GPS relativistic compensation was calculated and planned BEFORE the satellites were launched.

The compensation is no way relativistic,
since it is assuming proper clocks to
indicate t'=t and violating The Holiest
Postulate.
And it's doubtful it was calculated before.
Not impossible, of course.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/29/26 22:43, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 9/30/2026 1:03 AM, x3 wrote:

A 'measurement' is an increment of energy or
momentum transfer.

I'm applying a ruler to a table. Where is
this increment?

Generally quantum mechanics is in the world
of the very small.

Nonetheless some of it goes back to the ancient
'that which can not be cut'. There is also
something called the 'integral' and the 'derivative'
as well as the 'point' and the 'curve'.

Now 'point' and 'curve' are terms in mathematics,
but 'particle' and 'wave' tend to be terms
taken on by 'physics' (observed and not
theory only).

Either way the 'increments' tend to be much
smaller. (Another way of saying this might
be that a classical 'ruler or measuring
rod' might have many 'atoms' within it.)

Ypur moronic religion is making complete
morons of you.

Then there is of course the term 'religion'.
What does that mean? 'Faith' can make you
persist in false ideas longer than realistic
sense would make others change their mind,
but it might also make people persist in
true ideas when confronted with false ideas.

Then there are the words 'true' and 'false'.
What do they mean? Is all of 'philosophy'
'duplicity'? Maybe. Who knows?


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

No, Maciej. This time you're, again, simply factually wrong.

You write:

"The compensation is no way relativistic"

But the GPS technical documentation explicitly says the opposite:

"clock rates ... are offset to compensate
for relativistic effects."

The specified fractional offset is approximately

df/f = -4.4647 x 10^-10

giving the famous pre-offset clock frequency

10.22999999543 MHz

instead of 10.23 MHz.

And where does that number come from?

Approximately:

+45 us/day gravitational contribution
-7 us/day kinematic contribution
-----------------------------
+38 us/day net relativistic effect.

Which brings us back, amusingly, to your own:

"Cs clocks, AFAIK +38 microseconds."

You had the right number before you started trying to make it disappear.

And about:

"it's doubtful it was calculated before.
Not impossible, of course."

Indeed, Maciej.

"Not impossible" is a remarkably cautious description of something that is documented to have actually happened.

The technical literature explicitly describes the fractional frequency
offset as being applied PRIOR TO LAUNCH.

So the sequence is not:

launch satellite
observe mysterious drift
fiddle with calibration
obtain t'=t
invent relativity as explanation

It is:

use relativity
-> predict about +38 us/day

calculate required frequency offset
-> about -4.465 x 10^-10

apply that offset
-> BEFORE LAUNCH

launch satellite.

We aren't even arguing here about how relativity should be "interpreted."

Your description of what GPS engineers are doing contradicts the technical documentation of GPS itself.

You say the compensation is "no way relativistic."

The GPS documentation says it is there "to compensate for relativistic effects."

You doubt it was calculated before launch.

The technical literature says the offset was applied before launch.

So apparently the "religious maniacs" achieved the "not impossible":

they calculated the correction before the clocks had the opportunity to
tell them what correction they supposedly needed.

Then the clocks behaved accordingly.

*Puff!* indeed.

Unfortunately, what just vanished wasn't relativity
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 9/30/2026 7:49 PM, Python wrote:

And here's the awkward detail:

The GPS relativistic compensation was calculated and planned BEFORE the
satellites were launched.

The compensation is no way relativistic, since it is assuming proper
clocks to indicate t'=t and violating The Holiest Postulate.
And it's doubtful it was calculated before.
Not impossible, of course.

please dont answer, that guy is both liar and stupid; they had and still
have a switch in those crappy GPS satellites, to turn ON/OFF the
relaativity corrections, if those corrections are there and necessary.
Tell him he is a lying bitch, who fought the anglo-saxon pigs at Waterloo
and lost
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/26 00:55, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 01:03, x3 a |-crit :

A 'measurement' is an increment of energy or
momentum transfer.

Something that is not 'measured' generally
does not exist except as part of a 'waveform'.

The waveform can have a long or short 'frequency'
or 'wavelength'.

There is also something called a 'Fourier' transform,
which generally means that all curves can be summarized
as the addition of various 'waves' or sine or cosine
curves.-a At short 'wavelengths' or high 'frequencies'
the transfer can be in steps that are high in energy
or momentum, however there can be many finer and more
'steps' at lower frequencies or higher wavelengths.

This step nature of the increments is generally called
'quantum'.-a Or specific quantities for each step.-a There
can be many 'quanta' or 'particles' in a wave if it is
a 'Boson'.-a A 'Fermion' however obeys the 'Pauli Exclusion
Principle'.-a (In other words it is something like 'matter'
that 'takes up space'.)-a There are an array of different
'interpretations of quantum mechanics' that can be described
in different ways.

No.

Fourier decomposition does not imply quantization. A perfectly classical continuous signal can have a continuous Fourier spectrum.

Quantization comes from the physics, not from the Fourier transform.

I would agree with that, with the word 'physics' implying
empiricism. However a lot of these words approach the boundary
between physics, mathematics, and philosophy.

Likewise, boson vs fermion is about quantum statistics, not "many
particles in a wave" versus "matter taking up space."

You have the right vocabulary, but the arrows connecting it are largely imaginary.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 8:18 PM, Python wrote:

No, Maciej. This time you're, again, simply factually wrong.

You write:

-a-a "The compensation is no way relativistic"

But the GPS technical documentation explicitly says the opposite:

It says and it is false.
The compensation is no way relativistic,
since it is assuming proper clocks to
indicate t'=t and violating The Holiest
Postulate.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 8:23 PM, x3 wrote:

On 9/30/26 00:55, Python wrote:

Le 30/09/2026 |a 01:03, x3 a |-crit :

A 'measurement' is an increment of energy or
momentum transfer.

Something that is not 'measured' generally
does not exist except as part of a 'waveform'.

The waveform can have a long or short 'frequency'
or 'wavelength'.

There is also something called a 'Fourier' transform,
which generally means that all curves can be summarized
as the addition of various 'waves' or sine or cosine
curves.-a At short 'wavelengths' or high 'frequencies'
the transfer can be in steps that are high in energy
or momentum, however there can be many finer and more
'steps' at lower frequencies or higher wavelengths.

This step nature of the increments is generally called
'quantum'.-a Or specific quantities for each step.-a There
can be many 'quanta' or 'particles' in a wave if it is
a 'Boson'.-a A 'Fermion' however obeys the 'Pauli Exclusion
Principle'.-a (In other words it is something like 'matter'
that 'takes up space'.)-a There are an array of different
'interpretations of quantum mechanics' that can be described
in different ways.

No.

Fourier decomposition does not imply quantization. A perfectly
classical continuous signal can have a continuous Fourier spectrum.

Quantization comes from the physics, not from the Fourier transform.

I would agree with that, with the word 'physics' implying
empiricism.

Buhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Ah. So now the GPS documentation itself is wrong.

Fine.

You claim:

"The compensation is no way relativistic"

because it supposedly

"violat[es] The Holiest Postulate."

Then show the violation.

Relativity predicts that clocks following different worldlines and gravitational potentials accumulate different proper times.

For GPS, the relevant effects give approximately:

+45 us/day
-7 us/day
----------
+38 us/day

The satellite clocks are therefore pre-offset so that, once in orbit, they realize the SAME GPS coordinate-time rate as the reference clocks.

That is not a violation of relativity.

That is the purpose of the relativistic correction.

You keep confusing:

same coordinate-time rate AFTER compensation

with:

same accumulated proper time WITHOUT compensation.

Those are not the same statement.

And this is becoming quite a progression:

+38 us? "AFAIK"
compensation? yes
before launch? "not impossible"
GPS docs say
relativistic? GPS docs are false

At this rate the only remaining experimental result compatible with your theory will be the one obtained after declaring all the others false.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/30/2026 11:11 PM, Python wrote:

Ah. So now the GPS documentation itself is wrong

Engineers writing it didn't know The Shit well.

because it supposedly

-a-a "violat[es] The Holiest Postulate."

Then show the violation.

According to the postulate - Cs radiation
frequency should be the same in every frame.
Corrections assume 9 192 631 770 on Earth
and 9 192 631 774 on a satellite.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 01/10/2026 |a 06:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/30/2026 11:11 PM, Python wrote:

Ah. So now the GPS documentation itself is wrong

Engineers writing it didn't know The Shit well.

because it supposedly

-a-a "violat[es] The Holiest Postulate."

Then show the violation.

According to the postulate - Cs radiation
frequency should be the same in every frame.
Corrections assume 9 192 631 770 on Earth
and 9 192 631 774 on a satellite.

No, Maciej. That's the confusion.

The Cs-133 definition says that a local proper second corresponds to

9 192 631 770

periods of the Cs transition.

Relativity does NOT say that every observer, in every state of motion and
at every gravitational potential, must therefore receive

9 192 631 770

cycles from every remote Cs clock during one of HIS seconds.

If it did, Doppler shift alone would already have refuted relativity more
than a century ago.

The satellite Cs atom does not magically acquire a different atomic
transition because GPS engineers write

9 192 631 774.

That number describes the relation needed between the satellite clock and
GPS coordinate time, taking the relativistic rate difference into account.

Locally, the Cs clock still realizes its proper second from the same Cs transition.

This is exactly the distinction you've been avoiding:

local proper frequency

is not the same thing as

frequency/rate comparison between clocks
following different worldlines.

And your latest argument has a rather spectacular consequence.

You now claim that GPS engineers "didn't know" relativity because the
actual GPS relativistic correction contradicts relativity.

So we have reached:

physicists misunderstand relativity
metrologists misunderstand relativity
GPS engineers misunderstand relativity
GPS documentation misunderstands relativity

while Maciej alone has discovered that relativity actually predicts no relativistic clock-rate correction at all.

There is a simpler possibility. :-)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2