Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity

[Pentcho Valev]

All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate are absurd (according to sane people) but Einsteinians would admit absurdity only if the theory is shown to predicts that two observers see incompatible events occurring at the same location (e.g. if the bug from the bug-rivet paradox is squashed according to one observer and alive and kicking according to the other).

See the story starting at 8:34 in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg
"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"

At 9:01 Sarah sees the train falling through the hole without any disintegration. In contrast, in order for Adam to see the train falling through the hole, the train must disintegrate first (9:53).

Adam does see disintegration of the train; Sarah sees no disintegration. Conclusion: Length contraction is absurd and the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Pentcho Valev

[james...@gmail.com]

Space might not contract but...

rate slowdown for the atom is real by the strength of gravity in dimension
and movement in dimension.

Mitchell Raemsch

[shan]

jamesl51165 wrote:

>> Adam does see disintegration of the train; Sarah sees no
>> disintegration.
>> Conclusion: Length contraction is absurd and the underlying premise,
>> Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.
>>
>> Pentcho Valev
>
> Space might not contract but...
> rate slowdown for the atom is real by the strength of gravity in
> dimension and movement in dimension. Mitchell Raemsch

They are putting industrial residues in your food, for instance iron
fillings in your cereals. Throwing waste into the rivers is just an
unprofitable waste of time.

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 10:24:35 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:

> All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate are absurd

Your posts are absurd. How much time do you spend every day fishing out those
links? When you listen to the music of Philip Glass, do you set the player
to the "repeat" mode? :-)

--
Jan

[shan]

the foundations of modern calculus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1AylsZpkFk

[Pentcho Valev]

It follows from Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate that unlimitedly long objects can be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers (as seen from the quotations below, some Einsteinians teach that the trapped objects are physically compressed while others insist that there is no compression at all):

http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/images/Ladder_paradox_garage_irf1.png

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQHPAeiiQ3w
"How fast does a 7 m long buick need to go to fit in a 2 m deep closet?"

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg
"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity", see what happens at 7:12

It is not difficult to realize that trapping long objects inside short containers drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The trapped object, in trying to restore its original volume, would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere. Einsteinians don't care - they even teach that length contraction is a geometrical projection, not a physical event:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/8CsHfE9FxRs/xTVWGUcNRpYJ
Tom Roberts: "There is no "physical length contraction" in SR, there is only "length contraction" which is a geometrical projection -- nothing "physical" happens to the object itself."

Yet Lawrence Krauss seems to disagree with Tom Roberts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQTNoNZ3_PY
Lawrence Krauss demonstrates real length contraction

Pentcho Valev

[Sylvia Else]

If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in
Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through
unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked?

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

On 3/02/2016 10:07 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in
> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through
> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked?
>
> Sylvia.

I note, BTW, that the video itself eventually explains this.

Sylvia.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in
> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through
> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked?

And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view
he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him.
So said a bunch of Gurus!
Must be the truth.

[David Waite]

I know you're not a rational thinking person, so this will probably still be over your head, but for example believe it or not, the earth spins, so a person held stationary over the surface of the earth for example will indeed find the trees to be the things in motion with respect to his stationary self. Now since special relativity is really about how spacetime standards relate in describing physics according to inertial frame observers instead, as long as you don't have accelerated observers, any observer can decide he's the one who is stationary observing the others to be in motion with respect to himself.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 14:10:43 UTC+1 użytkownik David Waite napisał:
> On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 5:54:56 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> > > If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in
> > > Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through
> > > unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked?
> >
> > And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view
> > he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him.
> > So said a bunch of Gurus!
> > Must be the truth.
>
> I know you're not a rational thinking person, so this will probably still be over your head, but for example believe it or not, the earth spins, so a person held stationary over the surface of the earth for example will indeed find the trees to be the things in motion with respect to his stationary self.

Yeah, sure! Any person going through a forest
sees trees running around! Relativistic moron
said, relativistic moron believes, must be truth.

Well, I know you're not a rationally thinking

person, so this will probably still be over

your head, but brain, even brain of such a
moron, is complicated thing and real observer can
perform really complicated processes with it.
"Seeing" or "observing" or "finding" are amongst
them.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 7:25:44 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 14:10:43 UTC+1 użytkownik David Waite napisał:
> >
> > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 5:54:56 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > >
> > > And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view
> > > he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him.
> > > So said a bunch of Gurus!
> > > Must be the truth.
> >
> > I know you're not a rational thinking person, so this will probably
> > still be over your head, but for example believe it or not, the earth
> > spins, so a person held stationary over the surface of the earth for
> > example will indeed find the trees to be the things in motion with
> > respect to his stationary self.
>
> Yeah, sure! Any person going through a forest
> sees trees running around! Relativistic moron
> said, relativistic moron believes, must be truth.

This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally
embraces the correct concept. Actually, YOU are always at rest, whether
you're "moving" or not. Your pathetic sophist baloney is a sorry attempt
to obfuscate the issue with a sad straw man argument.

[Remainder of your stupid baloney snipped so as not to spread your mentally-
aberrant and abhorrent insanity]

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:ea1db4ee-26cf-4c44...@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 7:25:44 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 14:10:43 UTC+1 użytkownik David Waite napisał:
> >
> > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 5:54:56 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > >
> > > And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view
> > > he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him.
> > > So said a bunch of Gurus!
> > > Must be the truth.
> >
> > I know you're not a rational thinking person, so this will probably
> > still be over your head, but for example believe it or not, the earth
> > spins, so a person held stationary over the surface of the earth for
> > example will indeed find the trees to be the things in motion with
> > respect to his stationary self.
>
> Yeah, sure! Any person going through a forest
> sees trees running around! Relativistic moron
> said, relativistic moron believes, must be truth.

|This actually Galileo's concept,

Yet it moves - Galileo didn't believe it himself.

[Gary Harnagel]

Everyone knows you are the same babbling baboon so why do you maintain
this fiction that there are two of you? Now you come along and make the
dishonest claim that Galileo didn't believe his own thoughts? What a
bobblehead that makes you!

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:3d7e969e-8739-420a...@googlegroups.com...

> > Yeah, sure! Any person going through a forest
> > sees trees running around! Relativistic moron
> > said, relativistic moron believes, must be truth.
>
> |This actually Galileo's concept,
>
> Yet it moves - Galileo didn't believe it himself.

|Everyone knows you are the same babbling baboon so why do you maintain
|this fiction that there are two of you? Now you come along and make the
|dishonest claim that Galileo didn't believe his own thoughts?

Of course he didn't. And yet it moves...
If he truly follow the shit he invented, he would swear
that from his point of view Earth is immobile.

[JanPB]

Not even wrong.

--
Jan

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:2a848f12-02fc-4583...@googlegroups.com...

Yeah, and you're a queen of England, too.

[Gary Harnagel]

Every time you post your stupidity, you prove once again that you don't
understand physics. It was the POPE that claimed the earth didn't move,
you stupefied moron. Galileo claimed it DID move, you collection of
wretched lies.

"God is omnipotent, but even He cannot change the past. That is why He
created historians." -- Anonymous

Particularly the moronic liars like Wozniak

[shan]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> Of course he didn't. And yet it moves...
>> If he truly follow the shit he invented, he would swear that from his
>> point of view Earth is immobile.
>
> Every time you post your stupidity, you prove once again that you don't
> understand physics. It was the POPE that claimed the earth didn't move,
> you stupefied moron. Galileo claimed it DID move, you collection of
> wretched lies.

Can you prove the earth is moving, no. It would imply a stationary
spacetime or an aether with crustal structure. Such things does not
exists, hence you may safely consider that everything else is moving
around the earth, since it exactly how it looks like.

[Sylvia Else]

That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position, and
then criticise it based on the misrepresentation.

Sylvia.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:07:32 PM UTC-7, shan wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:

> >
> > Moron Wozniak wrote:
> > >
> > > Of course he didn't. And yet it moves...
> > > If he truly follow the shit he invented, he would swear that from his
> > > point of view Earth is immobile.
> >
> > Every time you post your stupidity, you prove once again that you don't
> > understand physics. It was the POPE that claimed the earth didn't move,
> > you stupefied moron. Galileo claimed it DID move, you collection of
> > wretched lies.
>
> Can you prove the earth is moving, no.

Sure, it's moving relative to the sun, relative to the moon, relative to
just about everything in the universe. Do you wish to deny it?

> It would imply a stationary spacetime or an aether with crustal structure.

Nope.

> Such things does not exists, hence you may safely consider that everything
> else is moving around the earth, since it exactly how it looks like.

What something "looks like" is usually a very naïve viewpoint. That is
true for inertial motion. And for rotational motion, that clearly
demonstrates that the earth is NOT stationary.

[JanPB]

He has an agenda so nothing he says makes sense, it's all just promoting some cuckoo cause.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 23:16:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 12:32:15 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> >
> > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:3d7e969e-8739-420a...@googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > > Yeah, sure! Any person going through a forest
> > > > sees trees running around! Relativistic moron
> > > > said, relativistic moron believes, must be truth.
> > >
> > > |This actually Galileo's concept,
> > >
> > > Yet it moves - Galileo didn't believe it himself.
> >
> > |Everyone knows you are the same babbling baboon so why do you maintain
> > |this fiction that there are two of you? Now you come along and make the
> > |dishonest claim that Galileo didn't believe his own thoughts?
> >
> > Of course he didn't. And yet it moves...
> > If he truly follow the shit he invented, he would swear
> > that from his point of view Earth is immobile.
>
> Every time you post your stupidity, you prove once again that you don't
> understand physics. It was the POPE that claimed the earth didn't move,
> you stupefied moron. Galileo claimed it DID move, you collection of
> wretched lies.

Yes, Galileo did. And if he truly followed the rules
he invented, he wouldn't. According to your Shit,
Galileo should observe and claim, that Earth is
immobile.
You know, in real world observers differ. And
their claims differ. Galileo's theory of
observers and their claims matches only a
part of them. Those like the pope, not those
like Copernicus or Galileo himself.
But these are the things too complicatted for
your tiny brain.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 03:21:58 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:07:32 PM UTC-7, shan wrote:
> >
> > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > Moron Wozniak wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Of course he didn't. And yet it moves...
> > > > If he truly follow the shit he invented, he would swear that from his
> > > > point of view Earth is immobile.
> > >
> > > Every time you post your stupidity, you prove once again that you don't
> > > understand physics. It was the POPE that claimed the earth didn't move,
> > > you stupefied moron. Galileo claimed it DID move, you collection of
> > > wretched lies.
> >
> > Can you prove the earth is moving, no.
>
> Sure, it's moving relative to the sun, relative to the moon, relative to
> just about everything in the universe. Do you wish to deny it?

But, unfortunately, it was not moving relative to Galileo, so,
according to the moronic rules he invented, he should support
the pope.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 00:15:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> On 3/02/2016 11:54 PM, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> >> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in
> >> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through
> >> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked?
> >
> > And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view
> > he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him.
> > So said a bunch of Gurus!
> > Must be the truth.
> >
>
> That's a pretty classic strawman - misrepresent someone's position

Quorting Gary:

This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally
embraces the correct concept.

End of quote.
No, it isn't any misrepresentation. That's exactly
what Your physics represents.

[Sylvia Else]

You characterise the motion of the trees as "running around". Not only
do the trees not run, but their motion is all in the same direction,
being the opposite of the direction is moving in in the frame of the
trees. So there's no sense in which it can be said to be "around".

Like I said - a strawman.

Sylvia.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

:)
A nice try, but, I'm afraid, it's never as easy in
the common language. "trees are running around him"
can mean "trees around him" as well, as "running around
him".
Keep practicing, but there is still much to learn.

[Sylvia Else]

So, despite the picturesque language, you're accepting that if Adam has
a velocity v (a vector) in the frame of the trees, then the trees have
velocity -v in Adam's frame.

Sylvia.

[Gary Harnagel]

Anyone with such a twisted mind like yours cannot be left alone. Run,
do not walk, to the nearest mental institution and have yourself
committed. You are a danger to yourself as well as others.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

No. I'm only accepting that You're saying so.
Though, BTW, not so long ago You've agreed, that
there are no frames, when things are not inertial.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Rave, moron, and spit. What else could you do.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 6:12:21 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> Rave, moron, and spit. What else could you do.

I can tell that you're a sorry excuse for an adult, more like a baby in
its terrible twos

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Yeah, you can always do even more raving and spitting.
But nothing else.
As expected from relativistic trash.

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 6:07:12 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 3/02/2016 5:24 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light
> > postulate are absurd (according to sane people) but Einsteinians
> > would admit absurdity only if the theory is shown to predicts that
> > two observers see incompatible events occurring at the same location
> > (e.g. if the bug from the bug-rivet paradox is squashed according to
> > one observer and alive and kicking according to the other).
> >
> > See the story starting at 8:34 in this video:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg "Einstein's Relativistic
> > Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"
> >
> > At 9:01 Sarah sees the train falling through the hole without any
> > disintegration. In contrast, in order for Adam to see the train
> > falling through the hole, the train must disintegrate first (9:53).
> >
> > Adam does see disintegration of the train; Sarah sees no
> > disintegration. Conclusion: Length contraction is absurd and the
> > underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
> > postulate, is false.

>
> If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in
> Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through
> unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked?

Your argument is based on the bogus concept of relativity of simultaneity (RoS). The problem with the RoS is that the observer claims that the speed of light (or closing speed of light) in the train is anisotropic.....whereas the train observer measures the closing speed of light is isotropic.

[james...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 6:58:11 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 6:07:12 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 3/02/2016 5:24 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Space contraction isn't happening... hypersphere universal expansion is...
Rate slows under gravity strength and atoms motions.

Mitchell Raemsch

[JanPB]

It's just a mental case. Nothing new around here.

--
Jan

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:0f92d6ee-de04-43a7...@googlegroups.com...

Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do.

[Sylvia Else]

So what do you suggest is how things work?

> Though, BTW, not so long ago You've agreed, that
> there are no frames, when things are not inertial.
>

I don't remember agreeing to that, and you do like to twist things
and/or have poor understanding.

Sylvia.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

If You mean trees, they usually don't work.
But if You mean an observer, he works better
when operating a single own velocity, than
operating with thousands velocities of trees.
Particularly, when main purpose of his all
observations is - controlling his movement
and avoiding killing himself by collision
with a tree.
Occam's razor, have You heard of it?

>
> > Though, BTW, not so long ago You've agreed, that
> > there are no frames, when things are not inertial.
> >
>
> I don't remember agreeing to that, and you do like to twist things
> and/or have poor understanding.

And You have a poor and selective memory.

[JanPB]

I think, Sylvia, it's quite clear now who you are dealing with.

BTW, about half of his posts are automagically flagged by Google(*) with the
"Translate message to English" button :-)

(*)I plead guilty to using the interface.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

:)
And why won't you tell it straightly?

>
> BTW, about half of his posts are automagically flagged by Google(*) with the
> "Translate message to English" button :-)

:)
Very funny, but about half of my posts is sent from my
Polish e-mail application and have Polish header.

[Sylvia Else]

All the trees have the same velocity.

>> I don't remember agreeing to that, and you do like to twist things
>> and/or have poor understanding.
>
> And You have a poor and selective memory.
>

I think not. Give the URL of the relevant posting in Google Groups.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

He appears to be just a troll. So not as interesting as Henry. Mind you,
I rarely read Henry's missives.

Sylvia.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Yes, and it's 0.
It's not about imagined twins in imagined rockets.
Millions of people go through forests every day.
They all consider trees as immobile from their
points of view, as long, as these trees are not
falling. Take ANY person form the street and ask
him/her whether he/she is observing these trees/lanterns/
buildings around moving with any speed.

Your brilliant relativitic "point of view of an
observer" is completely primitive, and thus easy
and simple enough for formalizing. And this is
the end of its advantages.
Nobody uses it, and nobody ever will.

>
> >> I don't remember agreeing to that, and you do like to twist things
> >> and/or have poor understanding.
> >
> > And You have a poor and selective memory.
> >
>
> I think not. Give the URL of the relevant posting in Google Groups.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/m2BKfSHsHio
I quoted Your fellow Tom:
> Quoting Tom:
> This is wrong. In relativity and essentially all of modern physics there is
> more: a frame of reference consists of a 3-D rectangular FRAME (latticework) of
> rulers with a clock located at each junction; the clocks must all be mutually
> synchronized. Constructing such a FRAME requires that the entire FRAME be at
> rest in some inertial frame. It is NOT coincidence that the same word is used.
> This _IS_ what "frame" means in modern physics.
> End of quoting.

Well, after reading carefully , Your answer was indeed one
of these "yes, but no" answers relativists often use. Took it
as yes. Seems, I've made a mistake.

[Sylvia Else]

Do you understand that the purpose behind all this is to obtain a
correct mathematical description of the world, so that we can make
predictions about it?

An incorrect mathematical description is no use at all.

It turns out that if we want a correct mathematical description, the
only thing that works is to accept that only relative velocities matter.
If we don't accept that, then the maths comes out wrong - the
predictions don't fit reality.

Physicists don't pull this stuff out of the air - it's forced on them by
the universe itself.

>
>
>>
>>>> I don't remember agreeing to that, and you do like to twist things
>>>> and/or have poor understanding.
>>>
>>> And You have a poor and selective memory.
>>>
>>
>> I think not. Give the URL of the relevant posting in Google Groups.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/m2BKfSHsHio
> I quoted Your fellow Tom:
>> Quoting Tom:
>> This is wrong. In relativity and essentially all of modern physics there is
>> more: a frame of reference consists of a 3-D rectangular FRAME (latticework) of
>> rulers with a clock located at each junction; the clocks must all be mutually
>> synchronized. Constructing such a FRAME requires that the entire FRAME be at
>> rest in some inertial frame. It is NOT coincidence that the same word is used.
>> This _IS_ what "frame" means in modern physics.
>> End of quoting.
>
> Well, after reading carefully , Your answer was indeed one
> of these "yes, but no" answers relativists often use. Took it
> as yes. Seems, I've made a mistake.
>

Sometimes distinctions can be subtle, but that doesn't mean they're
unimportant.

Sylvia.

[JanPB]

He thinks science is philosophy.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

What "world" do You mean?
These REAL people going through REAL forest -
aren't they a part of Your "world"? How about
these clocks of GPS, indicating t'=t in very
clear, mathematical numbers?
And, when this person from the street is saying
"I went through a forest" - what do You think
she is describing?
What do You think GPS clocks and their indications
are for?

>
> It turns out that if we want a correct mathematical description, the
> only thing that works is to accept that only relative velocities matter.

Correct mathematical description? Of what?
Where, exactly, in the world, can I find
Your "correctly described" observers?

> If we don't accept that, then the maths comes out wrong - the
> predictions don't fit reality.

No. If You accept that, Your predictions don't fit the
reality, because reality is simply DIFFERENT THAN YOU
IMAGINE IT.
And they don't.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 4:34:14 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>
> He [mlwo] thinks science is philosophy.
>
> --
> Jan

If what he spews is "philosophy" then ISIS is a benevolent organization.
It's obvious that people such as he, Pentcho and "Wilson" are seriously
disturbed with severe mental problems.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

No, poor idiot. YOU think your mathematics is the world.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

[Gary Harnagel]

The only one raving and spitting is you, mental case. You are so far gone,
you don't even realize it :-)

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

[JanPB]

Perhaps his philosophy is in the same league as his science :-)

--
Jan

[Gary Harnagel]

If he had a philosophy, he would deny that too. Denial is a common thing
in two-year-olds :-)

Gary

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:f9ef047e-9de9-4f63...@googlegroups.com...

[Sylvia Else]

Essentially, the problem for an observer is "If I make some measurement
X, can I work out, in advance, what the result of the measurement will be."

X is anything that can be measured, whether by using some instrument, or
observing (or more likely, having someone else observe) the size of the
dent in a skull after it's impacted a rock.

>>
>> It turns out that if we want a correct mathematical description, the
>> only thing that works is to accept that only relative velocities matter.
>
> Correct mathematical description? Of what?
> Where, exactly, in the world, can I find
> Your "correctly described" observers?

There are no correctly described observers. There are just poor everyday
guys who prefer not to have to achieve everything by trial and error.
With a correct mathematical description, these poor everyday guys can
work out what will happen in any given set of circumstances, and thereby
determine whether they want to create those circumstances, not care
about them, or actively avoid them.

>
>> If we don't accept that, then the maths comes out wrong - the
>> predictions don't fit reality.
>
> No. If You accept that, Your predictions don't fit the
> reality, because reality is simply DIFFERENT THAN YOU
> IMAGINE IT.
> And they don't.
>

Well, so you say, but people spend their entire careers testing theories
to see whether they can be found wanting. Relativity (and in particular
general relativity) has stood those tests exceptionally well.

You on the other hand, have yet to propose any single measurement whose
result conflicts with the theory.

Sylvia.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:dhkvvv...@mid.individual.net...

So, are they a part of Your "world" or not?

>> It turns out that if we want a correct mathematical description, the
>> only thing that works is to accept that only relative velocities matter.
>
> Correct mathematical description? Of what?
> Where, exactly, in the world, can I find
> Your "correctly described" observers?

|There are no correctly described observers.

And, as You can't do the task correctly, instead You imagine they
are different, than they are.

|Well, so you say, but people spend their entire careers testing theories
|to see whether they can be found wanting. Relativity (and in particular
|general relativity) has stood those tests exceptionally well.

Well, so You say, and unfortunately, it's a total bullshit.

|You on the other hand, have yet to propose any single measurement whose
|result conflicts with the theory.

Check the clocks of GPS. They indicate t'=t. Clocks indicate, so it's
a DIRECT MEASUREMENT result, right from the real world, not from
your gedankens.
Game over.

And - do You know, why they are set differently, than Your relativity
ordered to set clocks?
Because GPS is a serious device designed to do REAL measurements
and REAL calculations with the REAL results. Not a toy for people
like You to puff about their imagined wisdom.

[Sylvia Else]

What are "they"?

>
>
>>> It turns out that if we want a correct mathematical description, the
>>> only thing that works is to accept that only relative velocities matter.
>>
>> Correct mathematical description? Of what?
>> Where, exactly, in the world, can I find
>> Your "correctly described" observers?
>
> |There are no correctly described observers.
>
> And, as You can't do the task correctly, instead You imagine they
> are different, than they are.

I have not idea what you intend by that.

>
>
> |Well, so you say, but people spend their entire careers testing theories
> |to see whether they can be found wanting. Relativity (and in particular
> |general relativity) has stood those tests exceptionally well.
>
> Well, so You say, and unfortunately, it's a total bullshit.
>
> |You on the other hand, have yet to propose any single measurement whose
> |result conflicts with the theory.
>
> Check the clocks of GPS. They indicate t'=t. Clocks indicate, so it's
> a DIRECT MEASUREMENT result, right from the real world, not from
> your gedankens.

At the risk of raising the dreaded GPS clock topic, I'll just say that
the atomic clocks on board GPS satellites are configured so that they
count seconds slightly slowly compared with an accurate clock sitting
next to them. They do this so that they count seconds at the same rate
that a clock sitting on Earth counts them. The required adjustment was
calculated using general relativity.

> Game over.
>
> And - do You know, why they are set differently, than Your relativity
> ordered to set clocks?
> Because GPS is a serious device designed to do REAL measurements
> and REAL calculations with the REAL results. Not a toy for people
> like You to puff about their imagined wisdom.
>

They do what they are intended to do. Making them do that required a
solid knowledge of the physics of space, time and gravity.

Sylvia.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:dhlq86...@mid.individual.net...

aren't they a part of this "world" You're trying
to describe?

>> Correct mathematical description? Of what?
>> Where, exactly, in the world, can I find
>> Your "correctly described" observers?
>
> |There are no correctly described observers.
>
> And, as You can't do the task correctly, instead You imagine they
> are different, than they are.

|I have not idea what you intend by that.

Maybe You should read?

> |You on the other hand, have yet to propose any single measurement whose
> |result conflicts with the theory.
>
> Check the clocks of GPS. They indicate t'=t. Clocks indicate, so it's
> a DIRECT MEASUREMENT result, right from the real world, not from
> your gedankens.

|At the risk of raising the dreaded GPS clock topic, I'll just say that
|the atomic clocks on board GPS satellites are configured so that they

You know, in the reality clocks are always configured somehow,
and still the measurement procedure of time is - reading their indications.
So, measurement result still is - t'=t.
Don't You configure clocks in this "world" of Yours?

|that a clock sitting on Earth counts them. The required adjustment was
|calculated using general relativity.

No, it was not. Your relativity requires adjusting clocks to stay
unsynchronized and indicate its marvelous time dilation.

> Because GPS is a serious device designed to do REAL measurements
> and REAL calculations with the REAL results. Not a toy for people
> like You to puff about their imagined wisdom.
>
|They do what they are intended to do.

Yes. Real measurements and real calculations on real results.
Something Your brilliant, revolutionary, unsynchronizing
"proper clocks" are completely useless for.

|Making them do that required a solid knowledge of the
|physics of space, time and gravity.

And ignoring the "standards" this physics announced.

[Sylvia Else]

A real person going through a real forest, who fails to take sufficient
care will collide with a tree. Now, you might think that the pain that
results depends only the velocity of the person. However, this is wrong,
because it entails an assumption that the forest is not moving. If the
forest is moving, any calculation of the pain that takes into account
only the velocity of the person will give the wrong answer.

To get the right answer - the real answer - the calculation has to be
done using the difference in velocities of the person and the forest.

I can see you already getting ready to object that forests don't move.
Yet that is plainly absurd. A forest on the Earth shares the rotation of
the Earth's surface, the motion of the Earth round the sun, the motion
of the sun round the galaxy, and so on.

In reality, people measure their own speed not as an absolute, but
relative to their surroundings.

>>> Correct mathematical description? Of what?
>>> Where, exactly, in the world, can I find
>>> Your "correctly described" observers?
>>
>> |There are no correctly described observers.
>>
>> And, as You can't do the task correctly, instead You imagine they
>> are different, than they are.
>
> |I have not idea what you intend by that.
>
> Maybe You should read?

Have done. What you said still makes no sense.

>
>
>> |You on the other hand, have yet to propose any single measurement whose
>> |result conflicts with the theory.
>>
>> Check the clocks of GPS. They indicate t'=t. Clocks indicate, so it's
>> a DIRECT MEASUREMENT result, right from the real world, not from
>> your gedankens.
>
> |At the risk of raising the dreaded GPS clock topic, I'll just say that
> |the atomic clocks on board GPS satellites are configured so that they
>
> You know, in the reality clocks are always configured somehow,
> and still the measurement procedure of time is - reading their indications.
> So, measurement result still is - t'=t.
> Don't You configure clocks in this "world" of Yours?
>
> |that a clock sitting on Earth counts them. The required adjustment was
> |calculated using general relativity.
>
> No, it was not. Your relativity requires adjusting clocks to stay
> unsynchronized and indicate its marvelous time dilation.

General relativity does not say that GPS clocks will not stay in step
with Earth clocks. Synchronisation is a different issue entirely. You've
heard about it, but you don't understand it.

>
>> Because GPS is a serious device designed to do REAL measurements
>> and REAL calculations with the REAL results. Not a toy for people
>> like You to puff about their imagined wisdom.
>>
> |They do what they are intended to do.
>
> Yes. Real measurements and real calculations on real results.
> Something Your brilliant, revolutionary, unsynchronizing
> "proper clocks" are completely useless for.
>
> |Making them do that required a solid knowledge of the
> |physics of space, time and gravity.
>
> And ignoring the "standards" this physics announced.
>

No, they do exactly what the physics says they will.

Sylvia.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:dhm426...@mid.individual.net...

On 6/02/2016 8:52 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:

>>
>> So, are they a part of Your "world" or not?
>
> |What are "they"?
>
> These REAL people going through REAL forest -
> aren't they a part of this "world" You're trying
> to describe?

|A real person going through a real forest, who fails to take sufficient

Once again. ARE such persons a part of Your "world"?
The one You're describing?
Or, aren't they?

> |I have not idea what you intend by that.
>
> Maybe You should read?

|Have done. What you said still makes no sense.

Try again.

>
> You know, in the reality clocks are always configured somehow,
> and still the measurement procedure of time is - reading their
> indications.
> So, measurement result still is - t'=t.
> Don't You configure clocks in this "world" of Yours?
>
> |that a clock sitting on Earth counts them. The required adjustment was
> |calculated using general relativity.
>
> No, it was not. Your relativity requires adjusting clocks to stay
> unsynchronized and indicate its marvelous time dilation.

|General relativity does not say that GPS clocks will not stay in step
|with Earth clocks.

Really, doesn't it? So, what is this "time dilation" of yours?
I thought, "time dilation" is when clocks are not staying in step
with each other? Was I wrong?
And, do You, physicists, configure clocks in this "world" of Yours?

>
>> Because GPS is a serious device designed to do REAL measurements
>> and REAL calculations with the REAL results. Not a toy for people
>> like You to puff about their imagined wisdom.
>>
> |They do what they are intended to do.
>
> Yes. Real measurements and real calculations on real results.
> Something Your brilliant, revolutionary, unsynchronizing
> "proper clocks" are completely useless for.
>
> |Making them do that required a solid knowledge of the
> |physics of space, time and gravity.
>
> And ignoring the "standards" this physics announced.
>

|No, they do exactly what the physics says they will.

And what is the "standard" of clock Your physics announced?
Physics did announced a "standard" here, didn't it?
Do these clock match this standard, or ignore it?

[Paul B. Andersen]

As Sylvia but not Maciej know:

GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will run fast by
a factor 4.4546E-10 as observed from the ground.

https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf
quote (page 16-17):
"
At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977),
which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed
in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would
require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty
as to its magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were
some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths that
would need to be incorporated! A frequency synthesizer
was built into the satellite clock system so that after
launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
was that predicted by general relativity, then the synthesizer
could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate
necessary for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on
in NTS-2, it was operated for about 20 days to measure its
clock rate before turning on the synthesizer.
The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts
in 10^12 compared to clocks on the ground, while general
relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10^12. The difference
was well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock.
This then gave about a 1% verification of the combined
second-order Doppler and gravitational frequency shift effects
for a clock at 4.2 earth radii.
"
The original report of the measurements mentioned in the quote above:
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf

So direct measurements right from the real world indicate
dt'/dt = 4.4647E-10 as predicted by GR.
And 38 years of operation of the GPS has confirmed
GR's prediction to much better than 1% precision.

As a consequence of this all GPS SV clocks are adjusted to run
slow by the factor 4.4647E-10 as specified in this document:

http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf
quote from Chapter 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan (page 13):
"
The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be
coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV.
The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to
an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz.
The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would
appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to
compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are
offset by \Delta f/f = - 4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change
in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by
a \Delta f = - 4.5674E-3 Hz.
This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz.
"
>> Game over.

Indeed. The game was over 38 years ago.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[shan]

Użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:

>> next to them. They do this so that they count seconds at the same rate
>> that a clock sitting on Earth counts them. The required adjustment was
>> calculated using general relativity.
>
> As Sylvia but not Maciej know:
>
> GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will run fast by
> a factor 4.4546E-10 as observed from the ground.

That's why you are so stupid, since SR predicts something as well.

[shan]

Użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:

>> next to them. They do this so that they count seconds at the same rate
>> that a clock sitting on Earth counts them. The required adjustment was
>> calculated using general relativity.
>
> As Sylvia but not Maciej know:
> GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will run fast by a factor
> 4.4546E-10 as observed from the ground.
> https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf quote (page 16-17):

And Paul, in your single statement you already did a couple of mistakes,
and certainly also you have them in your hompage. SR predicts ZERO and two
MAXIMA, let's see whether you know the location of these points.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 5:35:16 AM UTC-7, shan wrote:
>
> [Abysmally stupid asinine baloney]

Shut up, troll

[Éibhear]

He said "sincerely", Gary. Or your name is not even Gary. Your mistakes
are unforgivable.

[Sylvia Else]

More like not even wrong.

> And, do You, physicists, configure clocks in this "world" of Yours?

You're conflating two different meanings for the word "clock". In
relativity, a "clock" is an ideal clock that precisely measures time in
its own frame. It's a device used to aid understanding of the theory.

A GPS clock is a different kind of object. It's not an ideal clock,
though part of its mechanism is designed to be as close to an ideal
clock as can be achieved. But another part of its mechanism is used to
take the output from its nearly-ideal clock, and produce time signals
that correspond as nearly as possible to those that would be produced by
an ideal clock on the ground.

>
>>
>>> Because GPS is a serious device designed to do REAL measurements
>>> and REAL calculations with the REAL results. Not a toy for people
>>> like You to puff about their imagined wisdom.
>>>
>> |They do what they are intended to do.
>>
>> Yes. Real measurements and real calculations on real results.
>> Something Your brilliant, revolutionary, unsynchronizing
>> "proper clocks" are completely useless for.
>>
>> |Making them do that required a solid knowledge of the
>> |physics of space, time and gravity.
>>
>> And ignoring the "standards" this physics announced.
>>
>
> |No, they do exactly what the physics says they will.
>
> And what is the "standard" of clock Your physics announced?

I haven't heard the expression, other than for you. But it sounds like
it would be what I've termed an ideal clock.

> Physics did announced a "standard" here, didn't it?
> Do these clock match this standard, or ignore it?
>

Again, you're conflating two different meanings.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

SR is known not to apply in this situation because of the effects of
gravity.

Sylvia.

[Éibhear]

Sylvia Else wrote:
>> And Paul, in your single statement you already did a couple of
>> mistakes,
>> and certainly also you have them in your hompage. SR predicts ZERO and
>> two MAXIMA, let's see whether you know the location of these points.
>>
> SR is known not to apply in this situation because of the effects of
> gravity. Sylvia.

Which reveals you are not aware of what is going on in physics, young
lady. Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. In this
context SR is stronger than GR. Since GR may have various stochastic
interpretations, SR is, and will persist being about motion. You don't
understand physics, young lady.

[Sylvia Else]

What's that nonsense? GR is a generalisation of SR to include the
effects of gravity. It is not a distinct theory.

Sylvia.

[james...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 3:17:31 PM UTC-8, Éibhear wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:

Atomic structure integrity would be violated if the train atom's change
size along the axis of motion. Molecular consistency order would now
be compromised... lopsided action would break down the order of the
small atoms in togetherness... problems of bond integrity are introduced.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Éibhear]

Sylvia Else wrote:

>>> SR is known not to apply in this situation because of the effects of
>>> gravity. Sylvia.
>>
>> Which reveals you are not aware of what is going on in physics, young
>> lady. Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. In this
>> context SR is stronger than GR. Since GR may have various stochastic
>> interpretations, SR is, and will persist being about motion. You don't
>> understand physics, young lady.
>
> What's that nonsense? GR is a generalisation of SR to include the
> effects of gravity. It is not a distinct theory. Sylvia.

You're a petrodollar.

[JanPB]

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 3:17:31 PM UTC-8, Éibhear wrote:

> Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> And Paul, in your single statement you already did a couple of
> >> mistakes,
> >> and certainly also you have them in your hompage. SR predicts ZERO and
> >> two MAXIMA, let's see whether you know the location of these points.
> >>
> > SR is known not to apply in this situation because of the effects of
> > gravity. Sylvia.
>
> Which reveals you are not aware of what is going on in physics, young
> lady. Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR.

You are confused. GR encompasses SR, therefore from the theoretical, absolute, point
of view only GR is ever needed (not just in GPS but in the entirety of physics).

Pure SR cannot be applied in GPS because of the presence of gravity. But
_in computational practice_ one can separate (as an approximation) the time difference
into two components which are typically (and rather incorrectly) referred to as "the SR
component" and "the GR component".

> In this
> context SR is stronger than GR. Since GR may have various stochastic
> interpretations, SR is, and will persist being about motion. You don't
> understand physics, young lady.

Got a mirror in the house? :-)

--
Jan

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/6/16 2/6/16 5:17 PM, Éibhear wrote:
> Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR.

And GR doesn't. GR includes all effects of SR, and also includes the effects of
gravity. Indeed, in the Minkowski spacetime of SR, GR is identical to SR. But GR
applies in many other manifolds as well, including those with gravity. In the
context of this sub-discussion, the GPS, SR simply does not apply, as Ms. Else said.

> In this
> context SR is stronger than GR. Since GR may have various stochastic
> interpretations, SR is, and will persist being about motion.

This is all nonsense.

> You don't
> understand physics, young lady.

What she said is correct. It is YOU who doesn't understand physics. Or common
courtesy.


Tom Roberts

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:dhnbhb...@mid.individual.net...

> And, do You, physicists, configure clocks in this "world" of Yours?

|You're conflating two different meanings for the word "clock". In
|relativity, a "clock" is an ideal clock that precisely measures time in
|its own frame. It's a device used to aid understanding of the theory.

And it's a pure imagination having nothing in common with
the reality.
You're not describing the world. You re describing some
pseudomathematical phantasmagories You're taking for
the world.
Now rave. What else can You do.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Maciej Woźniak" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:n96t09$vp1$1...@node2.news.atman.pl...

And about mixing the meaning of two words "clock" - it's You, who
do, not me.
When You confirm Your theories with experiments and measurements,
which clocks are You using? Real or imagined?
You're using those imagined ones, and You're thinking they are those
real ones.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:f19ee2a5-5c73-4a91...@googlegroups.com...

|Pure SR cannot be applied in GPS because of the presence of gravity.

And the second reason is that revolutionary concepts of The Shit
are practically useless.

[Sylvia Else]

One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one
can make it.

That does not preclude the existence of other kinds of real clock that
are designed to differ from an ideal clock in a specific way.

Sylvia.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:dhopb6...@mid.individual.net...

On 7/02/2016 7:31 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Maciej Woźniak" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:n96t09$vp1$1...@node2.news.atman.pl...
>
> And about mixing the meaning of two words "clock" - it's You, who
> do, not me.
> When You confirm Your theories with experiments and measurements,
> which clocks are You using? Real or imagined?
> You're using those imagined ones, and You're thinking they are those
> real ones.

|One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one
|can make it.

Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible.
But, they are for real measurements, real calculations and
the description of reality. Not for cheerful play with differential
equations. So, no surprise their ideal is different, than Your
ideal.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Maciej Woźniak" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:n97cks$d0u$1...@node1.news.atman.pl...

And yet - bingo. Ideals. Your guru didn't discover anything.
He has just invented brandly new ideal.
Well, as we can see at GPS, his ideal doesn't work.
But what a beautiful symmetry it gives us instead of
working.

[ˌsōlər ˈpleksəs]

JanPB wrote:

>> > SR is known not to apply in this situation because of the effects of
>> > gravity. Sylvia.
>>
>> Which reveals you are not aware of what is going on in physics, young
>> lady. Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR.
>
> You are confused. GR encompasses SR, therefore from the theoretical,
> absolute, point of view only GR is ever needed (not just in GPS but in
> the entirety of physics).

He is not confused. Can't you read what she said, that SR does not apply
because of GR. In which case you not that are confused, you are not even
parallel.

Encompasses, what encompasses. You are confusing an equation and a set of
lemma with the real stuff taking place in Nature, here the motion of GPS
satellites. You are not saying that those satellites are not in motion as
being encompassed by GR, are you?

I'll remind you that all in Nature works in super-positioning fashion.
Here apparently the motion, governed by SR, and curvature of spacetime,
governed by GR. Didactically you are advised to keep them separate, not
convoluted into each other.

> Pure SR cannot be applied in GPS because of the presence of gravity. But

Seemingly you don't understand this subject well enough.

> _in computational practice_ one can separate (as an approximation) the
> time difference into two components which are typically (and rather
> incorrectly) referred to as "the SR component" and "the GR component".

See, this is because those are correct, not incorrect.

[JanPB]

On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 11:35:00 AM UTC-8, ˌsōlər ˈpleksəs wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> > SR is known not to apply in this situation because of the effects of
> >> > gravity. Sylvia.
> >>
> >> Which reveals you are not aware of what is going on in physics, young
> >> lady. Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR.
> >
> > You are confused. GR encompasses SR, therefore from the theoretical,
> > absolute, point of view only GR is ever needed (not just in GPS but in
> > the entirety of physics).
>
> He is not confused. Can't you read what she said, that SR does not apply
> because of GR. In which case you not that are confused, you are not even
> parallel.

I recommend you enroll in a reading comprehension course. I'm not going to repeat
myself, just reread the thread carefully.

> Encompasses, what encompasses. You are confusing an equation and a set of
> lemma with the real stuff taking place in Nature, here the motion of GPS
> satellites.

Not worth my time.

--
Jan

[Sylvia Else]

On 7/02/2016 11:17 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:dhopb6...@mid.individual.net...
>
> On 7/02/2016 7:31 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>
>>
>> Użytkownik "Maciej Woźniak" napisał w wiadomości grup
>> dyskusyjnych:n96t09$vp1$1...@node2.news.atman.pl...
>>
>> And about mixing the meaning of two words "clock" - it's You, who
>> do, not me.
>> When You confirm Your theories with experiments and measurements,
>> which clocks are You using? Real or imagined?
>> You're using those imagined ones, and You're thinking they are those
>> real ones.
>
> |One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one
> |can make it.
>
> Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible.

What do you mean by t' = t?

> But, they are for real measurements, real calculations and
> the description of reality. Not for cheerful play with differential
> equations. So, no surprise their ideal is different, than Your
> ideal.

Yet general relativity keeps describing reality correctly, and theories
about the same subject matter that differ from general relativity do
not. That's a major stumbling block for anyone who claims that general
relativity is wrong and some other theory (usually their own pet one) is
right.

Sylvia.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 07.02.2016 20:34, ˌsōlər ˈpleksəs wrote:
> []

It doesn't help to change your name,
the trolling idiot is recognized anyway.

plonk

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Καλυψώ]

Tom Roberts :

> On 2/6/16 2/6/16 5:17 PM, Éibhear wrote:
>> Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR.
>
> And GR doesn't. GR includes all effects of SR, and also includes the
> effects of gravity.

Talk is cheap. Show.

> Indeed, in the Minkowski spacetime of SR, GR is
> identical to SR. But GR applies in many other manifolds as well,
> including those with gravity. In the context of this sub-discussion, the
> GPS, SR simply does not apply, as Ms. Else said.

You contradict yourself. First you say is INCLUDED. Than that "simply does
not apply", as it is not included. Choose an statement and stay with it.
Contradicting statements are counter-productive.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:dhqds7...@mid.individual.net...

>
> |One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one
> |can make it.
>
> Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible.

|What do you mean by t' = t?

You know, in the real world clocks usually have a display. Numeric
display. If we have 2 clocks, we can compare these numbers seen
on their sisplays...
And what does the above mean in this "world" of Yours?

> But, they are for real measurements, real calculations and
> the description of reality. Not for cheerful play with differential
> equations. So, no surprise their ideal is different, than Your
> ideal.

|Yet general relativity keeps describing reality correctly, and theories

It's not any reality. It's only Your imagination. In reality, this
real reality, there are no observers You've described, so,
there are no observations You've described. There are no
clocks You've described, so, there are no measurements
You've described.
It's only Your belief, that if the world was proper and ideal,
they would appear.


You know, if we bought Your belief these clocks of Yours are
ideal, we would make them. And then everything would
match. Indications, measurement results, predictions
of Your theory - everything. Samely with Your "points of
view" - if they were usable, we would use them, and
claim as You predicted.
But we can't buy it. The clocks are so obviously useless.
And the points of view are no better.

[JanPB]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 7:33:13 AM UTC-8, Καλυψώ wrote:
> Tom Roberts :
>
> > On 2/6/16 2/6/16 5:17 PM, Éibhear wrote:
> >> Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR.
> >
> > And GR doesn't. GR includes all effects of SR, and also includes the
> > effects of gravity.
>
> Talk is cheap. Show.

There is nothing to show, this is a basic fact about the structure and
relationship of both theories. It's analogous to saying the law of cosines
includes the Pythagorean theorem.

--
Jan

[Heiðr Einherjar]

Il giorno JanPB ha scritto

Those things are not even related in any way. Once you have a theory
including two distinct things, basic mathematics and super-positioning
says that nullifying a one will exteriorize the other. Similar to partial
differential equations, something I pretend you know.

Apollo Lunar Lander Exhaust?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksh8qyszLL8

LRO, Laser Retroreflector Oddity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz09H_qwQ-U

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:6327e60f-76a9-48ca...@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 7:33:13 AM UTC-8, Καλυψώ wrote:
> Tom Roberts :
>
> > On 2/6/16 2/6/16 5:17 PM, Éibhear wrote:
> >> Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR.
> >
> > And GR doesn't. GR includes all effects of SR, and also includes the
> > effects of gravity.

And, as it's inconsistent, also includes and can prove any
statement.

[Sylvia Else]

On 9/02/2016 4:15 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:dhqds7...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>
>> |One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one
>> |can make it.
>>
>> Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible.
>
> |What do you mean by t' = t?
>
> You know, in the real world clocks usually have a display. Numeric
> display. If we have 2 clocks, we can compare these numbers seen
> on their sisplays...

What they display will depend on what they're designed to do. There's no
universal law that says that they'll show the same value.

> And what does the above mean in this "world" of Yours?

It's just a statement about the equality of two otherwise unspecified
variables. It could mean anything.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

Inconsistent? Where is it inconsistent?

Sylvia.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 01:23:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:

> >> |One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one
> >> |can make it.
> >>
> >> Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible.
> >
> > |What do you mean by t' = t?
> >
> > You know, in the real world clocks usually have a display. Numeric
> > display. If we have 2 clocks, we can compare these numbers seen
> > on their sisplays...
>
> What they display will depend on what they're designed to do. There's no
> universal law that says that they'll show the same value.

Oh, yes, there is. We need them to do. So, either they will,
or they will end in a trash can, and we will make more
obedient instead.
You know, outside Your precious physics there is some
knowledge too.

>
> > And what does the above mean in this "world" of Yours?
>
> It's just a statement about the equality of two otherwise unspecified
> variables. It could mean anything.

If it can mean anything, how did You refute it?

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Take a closer look at Your gurus mumbling about these
famous black holes. Somehow, they tend to deny each other...
don't they?

[Koobee Wublee]

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 4:31:17 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:

> > At the risk of raising the dreaded GPS clock topic, I'll just say that
> > the atomic clocks on board GPS satellites are configured so that they
> > count seconds slightly slowly compared with an accurate clock sitting
> > next to them.

Sylvia Else's claim is not necessarily true. Engineers working on the GPS had already worked out a low cost, effective solution even if the clock frequencies among the satellites are hopelessly mismatched. <shrug>

> > They do this so that they count seconds at the same rate that a clock
> > sitting on Earth counts them. The required adjustment was calculated
> > using general relativity.

Sylvia is claiming things that she does not know anything about. GR effect maybe realistic as predicted by other Aether-based hypotheses. However, the algorithm implemented by GPS does not give a fvcking damn whether it is Newtonian or GR crap. <shrug>

> GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will run fast by a factor
> 4.4546E-10 as observed from the ground.

<yawn> So are other Aether based hypotheses. Want Koobee Wublee to give examples? <shrug>

> [rest of irrelevant nonsense snipped]

Paul is better to chase after chickens. <shrug>

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu sobota, 6 lutego 2016 13:31:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał:
> On 06.02.2016 09:46, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 6/02/2016 7:23 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> >>
> >> Check the clocks of GPS. They indicate t'=t. Clocks indicate, so it's
> >> a DIRECT MEASUREMENT result, right from the real world, not from
> >> your gedankens.

> >
> > At the risk of raising the dreaded GPS clock topic, I'll just say that
> > the atomic clocks on board GPS satellites are configured so that they
> > count seconds slightly slowly compared with an accurate clock sitting

> > next to them. They do this so that they count seconds at the same rate

> > that a clock sitting on Earth counts them. The required adjustment was
> > calculated using general relativity.
>

> As Sylvia but not Maciej know:

>
> GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will run fast by
> a factor 4.4546E-10 as observed from the ground.

A lie, as expected from a relativistic trash.
GR predicts that clock in GPS satellite will run
at the same rate, as Earth clock and they both will
indicate its time dilation idiocy.
Of course, GPS wouldn't work then, but what
a beautiful symmetry we would have instead.

[Sylvia Else]

On 9/02/2016 5:43 PM, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 01:23:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>
>>>> |One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one
>>>> |can make it.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible.
>>>
>>> |What do you mean by t' = t?
>>>
>>> You know, in the real world clocks usually have a display. Numeric
>>> display. If we have 2 clocks, we can compare these numbers seen
>>> on their sisplays...
>>
>> What they display will depend on what they're designed to do. There's no
>> universal law that says that they'll show the same value.
>
> Oh, yes, there is. We need them to do. So, either they will,
> or they will end in a trash can, and we will make more
> obedient instead.
> You know, outside Your precious physics there is some
> knowledge too.

The bottom line is that if we take two accurate clocks, and put one into
orbit and leave one on the ground, they will not stay in step. You may
feel that they should, but they don't.

>>
>>> And what does the above mean in this "world" of Yours?
>>
>> It's just a statement about the equality of two otherwise unspecified
>> variables. It could mean anything.
>
> If it can mean anything, how did You refute it?
>

Did I claim to have?

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

Even if they do, that doesn't make the theory inconsistent.

Sylvia.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 13:01:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> On 9/02/2016 5:43 PM, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 01:23:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> >
> >>>> |One uses a real clock that is as close to being an ideal clock as one
> >>>> |can make it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, sure. Clocks of GPS are as close to t'=t, as it is possible.
> >>>
> >>> |What do you mean by t' = t?
> >>>
> >>> You know, in the real world clocks usually have a display. Numeric
> >>> display. If we have 2 clocks, we can compare these numbers seen
> >>> on their sisplays...
> >>
> >> What they display will depend on what they're designed to do. There's no
> >> universal law that says that they'll show the same value.
> >
> > Oh, yes, there is. We need them to do. So, either they will,
> > or they will end in a trash can, and we will make more
> > obedient instead.
> > You know, outside Your precious physics there is some
> > knowledge too.
>
> The bottom line is that if we take two accurate clocks, and put one into
> orbit and leave one on the ground, they will not stay in step. You may
> feel that they should, but they don't.

If GPS wouldn't work, it would be accurate.
Now it works, and it means it isn't accurate.
To prevent clocks from being accurate we've
corrected them. Right?
Somehow, Your revolutionary theory doesn't
convince me. Probably because of my common
sense prejudices. But do You have any
experiments to confirm the accuracy of Your
accurate clocks?

> >>> And what does the above mean in this "world" of Yours?
> >>
> >> It's just a statement about the equality of two otherwise unspecified
> >> variables. It could mean anything.
> >
> > If it can mean anything, how did You refute it?
> >
>
> Did I claim to have?

And didn't You? Even if You personally didn't, a lot
of Your gurus and fellows did, and I mean multiple You.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Yes, statements denying each other are making
the theory inconsistent.
What else?

[Sylvia Else]

GPS works because an allowance is made for the fact that accurate clocks
don't stay in step in this situation.

> Somehow, Your revolutionary theory doesn't
> convince me. Probably because of my common
> sense prejudices. But do You have any
> experiments to confirm the accuracy of Your
> accurate clocks?

Compare them with other accurate clocks.

The behaviour of clocks as a result of motion and gravity has been
confirmed in experiments involving placing them on board aircraft and
sending them round the world. They've been seen to behave as predicted
by general relativity.

Now, a common-sense view of time would tell one that the journey won't
affect the clock, which will record the same passage of time as the
stay-at-home clock.

Well, they don't, and common-sense is wrong.

>
>
>>>>> And what does the above mean in this "world" of Yours?
>>>>
>>>> It's just a statement about the equality of two otherwise unspecified
>>>> variables. It could mean anything.
>>>
>>> If it can mean anything, how did You refute it?
>>>
>>
>> Did I claim to have?
>
> And didn't You? Even if You personally didn't, a lot
> of Your gurus and fellows did, and I mean multiple You.

I'm not responsible for the actions of others.

Sylvia.