The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

This picture speaks a thousand words: www.scisite.info/dinggps.jpg

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 7:18:04 AM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> This picture speaks a thousand words: www.scisite.info/dinggps.jpg
>

> Henry Wilson DSc.

And all of them mere assertion, i.e., nonsense.

Gary

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 06:56:18 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hit...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

poor fellow.....

>Gary

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

[Gary Harnagel]

> Henry Wilson DSc.

As I thought. You are ashamed to admit the truth so you do an ad hom.

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/12/15 7/12/15 4:52 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 3:08:37 PM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>> [... nothing o fsubstance]

> As I thought. You are ashamed to admit the truth so you do an ad hom.

There _IS_ no "argument" about the application of GR to the GPS. This is a
matter of public record, which ANYBODY with the desire to look up the documents
can settle for themselves in a few minutes with Google and a browser.

The designers of the GPS _DID_ use GR in its design. And
taking into account the effects of GR is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL
to the operation of the system. [#]

[#] I am discussing the actual GPS, as built; not some fictional
satellite positioning system some people around here fantasize
they could design differently.

The fact that Wilson refuses to look it up says A LOT more about him than about
either the GPS or GR.


Tom Roberts

[Helmut Wabnig]

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 23:05:50 -0500, Tom Roberts
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 7/12/15 7/12/15 4:52 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 3:08:37 PM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> [... nothing o fsubstance]
>> As I thought. You are ashamed to admit the truth so you do an ad hom.
>
>There _IS_ no "argument" about the application of GR to the GPS. This is a
>matter of public record, which ANYBODY with the desire to look up the documents
>can settle for themselves in a few minutes with Google and a browser.
>
> The designers of the GPS _DID_ use GR in its design. And
> taking into account the effects of GR is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL
> to the operation of the system. [#]
>

Assertion. How do you know? How do you proof?
Please point to something in history where that event took place:
incorporating GR into GPS.
"Clock corrections" are applied by trial and error, that is,
correct, measure, correct, measure, in an infinite loop everyday.
No GR required as it would be absolutely useless, because there are
about 100 other clock deviations which have to be corrected everyday.
GPS is an engineering feat, the over-important theorists only came
later.

w.

[kefischer]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:14:37 +0200, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- ---
-.dotat> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 23:05:50 -0500, Tom Roberts
><tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On 7/12/15 7/12/15 4:52 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 3:08:37 PM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>> [... nothing o fsubstance]
>>> As I thought. You are ashamed to admit the truth so you do an ad hom.
>>
>>There _IS_ no "argument" about the application of GR to the GPS. This is a
>>matter of public record, which ANYBODY with the desire to look up the documents
>>can settle for themselves in a few minutes with Google and a browser.
>>
>> The designers of the GPS _DID_ use GR in its design. And
>> taking into account the effects of GR is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL
>> to the operation of the system. [#]
>>
>Assertion. How do you know? How do you proof?
>Please point to something in history where that event took place:
>incorporating GR into GPS.

This has been posted here several times;

"

At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which
contained the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some
who doubted that relativistic effects were real. 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 GR,
then the synthesizer could be turned on bringing the clock to the
coordinate rate necessary for operation. The atomic clock was first
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 1012 faster than clocks on the ground; if left uncorrected this
would have resulted in timing errors of about 38,000 nanoseconds per
day. The difference between predicted and measured values of the
frequency shift was only 3.97 parts in 1012, well within the accuracy
capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% validation
of the combined motional and gravitational shifts for a clock at 4.2
earth radii."

http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/13/15 7/13/15 - 1:14 AM, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 23:05:50 -0500, Tom Roberts
> <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/12/15 7/12/15 4:52 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 3:08:37 PM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>> [... nothing o fsubstance]
>>> As I thought. You are ashamed to admit the truth so you do an ad hom.
>>
>> There _IS_ no "argument" about the application of GR to the GPS. This is a
>> matter of public record, which ANYBODY with the desire to look up the documents
>> can settle for themselves in a few minutes with Google and a browser.
>>
>> The designers of the GPS _DID_ use GR in its design. And
>> taking into account the effects of GR is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL
>> to the operation of the system. [#]
>>
> Assertion. How do you know? How do you proof?
> Please point to something in history where that event took place:
> incorporating GR into GPS.

A few minutes with google will answer your question, using the original GPS
documents. How else do you expect to resolve an HISTORICAL question like this?

> "Clock corrections" are applied by trial and error, that is,
> correct, measure, correct, measure, in an infinite loop everyday.

But not for the major correction to the GPS satellite clocks -- that is applied
via CALCULATION. LOOK IT UP!

Hint: that major correction is ~ 38 us/day; the daily
"trial and error" corrections are at most a few ns/day.


Tom Roberts

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:cNadnVhD1d6CpD7I...@giganews.com...

|The designers of the GPS _DID_ use GR in its design. And
|taking into account the effects of GR is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL
|to the operation of the system. [#]

A lie, common between relativistic morons.
And pissing at their moronic standards is

[paparios]

You have provided good evidence of your totally ignorance of how the GPS system works.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:cad351ab-9477-49a8...@googlegroups.com...

GPS works pissing at your moronic standards.
Just like that.
If it kept your "standard" clocks, it would never
work.

[paparios]

Not even wrong nonsense

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:34927e3a-a81d-414e...@googlegroups.com...

> GPS works pissing at your moronic standards.
> Just like that.
> If it kept your "standard" clocks, it would never
> work.

|Not even wrong nonsense

Not wrong, but unfortunately, true. Clocks of GPS aren't of your
moronic standard. GPS pissed at it.
Spitting and shouting can't change it.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 9:05:53 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:

> There _IS_ no "argument" about the application of GR to the GPS. This
> is a matter of public record, which ANYBODY with the desire to look up
> the documents can settle for themselves in a few minutes with Google
> and a browser.
>
> The designers of the GPS _DID_ use GR in its design. And
> taking into account the effects of GR is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL
> to the operation of the system. [#]

It has been shown many times how the GR effect, even if exists, is totally not necessary. <shrug>

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/zBIaxEVkMfQ/UHBWjg2SR1gJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/6700SmOHFqY/iG3WSzwi83kJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/BkJfFBDENpU/5Cwh86EUHCUJ

> [#] I am discussing the actual GPS, as built; not some fictional
> satellite positioning system some people around here fantasize
> they could design differently.

Tom is making shit up with myths. It is a total waste for a phd not to be able to try to understand what the easiest way of making GPS work. It does not involve any references to GR. That is not a myth but rational deduction. <shrug>

> The fact that Wilson refuses to look it up says A LOT more about him than
> about either the GPS or GR.

Tom also has failed as an experimental physicist. The buffoon should be able to tell which component is much smaller than others. The GR effect, if true, is actually down in the noise level from other random and independent variables that would have affected the accuracy of GPS. Thus, engineers being so much smarter than the self-styled physicists have been able to work out simple, cheap algorithms to nullify these random anomalies --- again possibly GR effect if it does exist. <shrug>

Note to readers. Tom and the self-styled physicists are among the most braindead group of imbeciles. The discussion of GPS is a technical one. Tom's argument solely rests on a piece of application note. Koobee Wublee and other scholars are able to point out if GR effect is not specifically implemented, GPS would just function fine with the algorithms engineers have come up with. Tom is defending a myth. <shrug>

[qw]

Which is correct, pablo. Nobody actually knows, they just believe they
know. You are so stupid, not knowing even that. There are no blueprints,
diagrams, BOM, code, peripherals etc. Analog to a remote control of a CRT
based TV. You at best master the RC. The embedded implementation of the TV
is irrelevant.

[JanPB]

The difference is, Tom knows his stuff and you don't: you have never
answered simplest questions about differential geometry (which is what
GR uses in an essential way) yet hurl ludicrous claims at people who do.

--
Jan

[qw]

JanPB wrote:

>> Note to readers. Tom and the self-styled physicists are among the most
>> braindead group of imbeciles. The discussion of GPS is a technical
>> one.
>> Tom's argument solely rests on a piece of application note. Koobee
>> Wublee and other scholars are able to point out if GR effect is not
>> specifically implemented, GPS would just function fine with the
>> algorithms engineers have come up with. Tom is defending a myth.
>> <shrug>
>
> The difference is, Tom knows his stuff and you don't: you have never
> answered simplest questions about differential geometry (which is what
> GR uses in an essential way) yet hurl ludicrous claims at people who do.

And you showed you are not familiar in tensors, pdes and discretization.
What methods are you using, what numerical recipes. (I assume you know
what I am talking about)

[qw]

Tom Roberts wrote:

>> "Clock corrections" are applied by trial and error, that is, correct,
>> measure, correct, measure, in an infinite loop everyday.
>
> But not for the major correction to the GPS satellite clocks -- that is
> applied via CALCULATION. LOOK IT UP!
>
> Hint: that major correction is ~ 38 us/day;

This correction is not done by the satellite, but governed by the ground
segment beacons. You got it upside down, proving yourself wrong.

> the daily "trial and error" corrections are at most a few ns/day.

Those might be adjusted locally, internally by the satellite peripherals
(counters/comparators).

However, you never know that, since the blueprints, BOM, component
diagrams, code etc are not open to the public.

If you know otherwise (I doubt) tell us what microcontrollers are used,
coding on the bare metal, or Embedded Operating System, peripherals and so
on.

[al...@interia.pl]

I agree.

A pretty the same way and for the same reason,
all the medieval sailors used the great
Ptolemy's model in his sailing practice.


You are indeed fantastically naive, stupid and blind... really! :)

[JanPB]

There is actually nothing outrageously wrong with the Ptolemy system,
it's simply what we'd call now a Fourier-type series expansion of the
heliocentric model. So yes, it's clumsy, but it's not wrong in the same
sense other series expansion schemes in physics (e.g. Feynman diagrams)
are not wrong. Of course the entire metaphysical edifice on top of it was
way off but that's another story entirely.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

Stop talking nonsense. The question I asked Koobee repeatedly and now
I'll ask you (since you forever pontificate about tensors, as if they
were some sort of last word in all of mathematics or something) is this:

consider the following metric tensor in the (x,y)-plane:

ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2

Question: it's obviously singular at x = 0. What is the nature of this
singularity? Can one cross from, say, the point (1,0) to (-1,0) ?

--
Jan

[qw]

JanPB wrote:

>> > The difference is, Tom knows his stuff and you don't: you have never
>> > answered simplest questions about differential geometry (which is
>> > what GR uses in an essential way) yet hurl ludicrous claims at people
>> > who do.
>>
>> And you showed you are not familiar in tensors, pdes and
>> discretization.
>> What methods are you using, what numerical recipes. (I assume you know
>> what I am talking about)
>
> Stop talking nonsense. The question I asked Koobee repeatedly and now
> I'll ask you (since you forever pontificate about tensors, as if they
> were some sort of last word in all of mathematics or something) is this:
>
> consider the following metric tensor in the (x,y)-plane:
>
> ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2
>
> Question: it's obviously singular at x = 0. What is the nature of this
> singularity? Can one cross from, say, the point (1,0) to (-1,0) ?

Totally irrelevant. So you are not familiar with Math Modelling and
Scientific Computation. Know nothing about discretization, numerical
approximation and such.

I'm forced to conclude your tensors have no scientific redeem.

[Koobee Wublee]

Totally irrelevant, unproductive, and childish. This reflects how shallow Jan the relativistic moron is. <shrug>

**** Exhibit "What Gives the Right?":

When Koobee Wublee had declared to use the polar coordinate system to describe the Schwarzschild geometry, Jan the relativistic moron ignorantly objected by asking what gave Koobee Wublee the right to use that coordinate system. <shrug>

**** Exhibit "What Independency":

Given the following geometry,

** dS^2 = c^2 dt^2 - ds^2

When Koobee Wublee rewrote the above into the following, Jan the relativistic moron objected:

** dS^2 / c^2 = dt^2 (1 - B^2)

Where

** B^2 c^2 = (ds/dt)^2

According to Jan's "wisdom", since dt and ds are independent to each other, (ds/dt) must be zero. <shrug>

**** Exhibit "What Metric":

Koobee Wublee has been saying the following for years. To describe an invariant geometry:

** Decide on a set of coordinate system that everyone understands what this coordinate system is capable of describing.

** Make your best effort in providing an interpretation. This interpretation is none other the metric itself. This interpretation can be improved by better experimental methods through better technology and better understanding of Mother Nature. The following relation should spell out what Koobee Wublee is talking about. <shrug>

** REALITY = INTERPRETATION * OBSERVATION

Where

** REALITY = THE INVARIANT GEOMETRY
** INTERPRETATION = THE METRIC
** OBSERVATION = THE CHOICE OF COORDINATE SYSTEM

Jan the relativistic moron finally agreed that the metric alone cannot possibly describe the invariant geometry but defiantly called science poetry. <shrug>

[JanPB]

You cannot answer "totally irrelevant". You are supposed to answer the
question as stated. If you cannot do it, you cannot say one negative
word on the subject of anyone's competence in GR.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 2:37:10 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 1:37:08 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 11:36:57 AM UTC-7, qw wrote:
>
> > > > The difference is, Tom knows his stuff and you don't: you have never
> > > > answered simplest questions about differential geometry (which is what
> > > > GR uses in an essential way) yet hurl ludicrous claims at people who do.
> > >
> > > And you showed you are not familiar in tensors, pdes and discretization.
> > > What methods are you using, what numerical recipes. (I assume you know
> > > what I am talking about)
> >
> > Stop talking nonsense. The question I asked Koobee repeatedly and now
> > I'll ask you (since you forever pontificate about tensors, as if they
> > were some sort of last word in all of mathematics or something) is this:
> >
> > consider the following metric tensor in the (x,y)-plane:
> >
> > ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2
> >
> > Question: it's obviously singular at x = 0. What is the nature of this
> > singularity? Can one cross from, say, the point (1,0) to (-1,0) ?
>
> Totally irrelevant, unproductive, and childish.

It's totally relevant simply because it's the elephant in the room: if
you cannot answer simple test questions like this, you cannot (by definition)
criticise GR or anybody's work in GR.

Your long diatribes (full of errors) mean exactly as much as a critique of,
say, calculus by someone who doesn't know how to differentiate 2^x.

--
Jan

[bpbruce...@gmail.com]

Idiot wind scientific illiterate nonsense machine. What's DSc stand for? Dumb shit crank?

[Helmut Wabnig]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 02:30:08 -0400, kefischer <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:

This does not proof that GR is a necessity at all.
The satellites work without it and you, kefisher.

What is your problem?

Nobody needs Ashby's explanations to run the GPS system.
Everybody who claims tha GR is necessary to run the GPS, is a liar.

w.

[Helmut Wabnig]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 02:30:08 -0400, kefischer <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:

This does not proof that GR is a necessity at all.
The satellites work without it and you, kefisher.

What is your problem?

Nobody needs Ashby's explanations to run the GPS system.
Everybody who claims tha GR is necessary to run the GPS, is a liar.

Imagine, you are the manager at the GPS sytem,
you find a difference of 38 盜econds or whatever.
All you have to do, is to correct the clock rates.
You don't have to know why.

And this is the point where all the little brains get confused.


w.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 12:24:41 AM UTC-7, Helmut Wabnig wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 02:30:08 -0400, kefischer wrote:

> > http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm
>
> This does not proof that GR is a necessity at all.

That is a very wise comment from an Einstein dingleberry and fellow old timer. <shrug>

> The satellites work without it and you, kefisher.

Right again. <shrug>

> What is your problem?

Seniority. <shrug>

> Nobody needs Ashby's explanations to run the GPS system.

That is very, very correct. Ashby and Pogge are just bullshit artists who do not understand the basics. <shrug>

> Everybody who claims tha GR is necessary to run the GPS, is a liar.

Or stupid fvcking idiot. <shrug>

> Imagine, you are the manager at the GPS sytem,
> you find a difference of 38 盜econds or whatever.
> All you have to do, is to correct the clock rates.
> You don't have to know why.

Yes, engineers have come up with algorithms just to correct for all that. An example is IEEE1588. <shrug>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_Time_Protocol

Or

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Time_Protocol

> And this is the point where all the little brains get confused.

Or get really fvcked up per Einstein dingleberry style. <shrug>

[Koobee Wublee]

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 3:30:11 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 2:37:10 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 1:37:08 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:

> > > ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2
> > >
> > > Question: it's obviously singular at x = 0. What is the nature of
> > > this singularity? Can one cross from, say, the point (1,0) to
> > > (-1,0) ?
>
> > Totally irrelevant, unproductive, and childish.
>
> It's totally relevant simply because it's the elephant in the room:

Not even wrong! <shrug>

> if you cannot answer simple test questions like this, you cannot
> (by definition) criticise GR or anybody's work in GR.

Totally irrelevant, unproductive, and childish.

> Your long diatribes (full of errors) mean exactly as much as a
> critique of, say, calculus by someone who doesn't know how to
> differentiate 2^x.

Another not even wrong shit! <shrug>

[kefischer]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:16:21 +0200, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- ---

The Russian system uses it too, they
just do it differently, and it is needed because
without it, the change in the signals falling
from orbit to the ground are changed by
gravity.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 12:53:39 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:16:21 +0200, Helmut Wabnig wrote:

> > Nobody needs Ashby's explanations to run the GPS system. Everybody
> > who claims tha GR is necessary to run the GPS, is a liar.
>

> The Russian system uses it too,

Bullshitting again, old man? Well, your bullshit cannot pass by the other elder. That means Fischer is vastly out of its league. <shrug>

> they just do it differently,

Just how much differently can one implement GR correction? It is just so fvcking easy to spot bullshit! <shrug>

> and it is needed because without it, the change in the signals falling
> from orbit to the ground are changed by gravity.

You have absolutely no fvcking idea what you are talking about. Gute Nacht from Pacific Daylight Wasting Time! <shrug>

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 1:24:41 AM UTC-6, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
>
> This does not proof that GR is a necessity at all.
> The satellites work without it and you, kefisher.
>
> What is your problem?
>
> Nobody needs Ashby's explanations to run the GPS system.
> Everybody who claims tha GR is necessary to run the GPS, is a liar.
>
> Imagine, you are the manager at the GPS sytem,
> you find a difference of 38 盜econds or whatever.
> All you have to do, is to correct the clock rates.
> You don't have to know why.
>
> And this is the point where all the little brains get confused.
>
>
> w.

What is YOUR problem? Why can't you accept that GR PREDICTED the 38 usec
per day discrepancy? Why do you choke over the fact that because of the
GR prediction, the first satellite put in orbit had the capability to
correct the clock on the fly rather than put up a useless bird and waste
a ton of money?

Sure, they could have done it experimentally, but they didn't have to
because GR saved their bacon.

Gary

[kefischer]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 01:12:58 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee
<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 12:53:39 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:16:21 +0200, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
>
>> > Nobody needs Ashby's explanations to run the GPS system. Everybody
>> > who claims tha GR is necessary to run the GPS, is a liar.
>>
>> The Russian system uses it too,
>
>Bullshitting again, old man? Well, your bullshit cannot pass by the other elder. That means Fischer is vastly out of its league. <shrug>

http://www.navipedia.net/index.php/Fundamental_Physics

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0507121

>> they just do it differently,
>
>Just how much differently can one implement GR correction? It is just so fvcking easy to spot bullshit! <shrug>

http://www.navipedia.net/index.php/Relativistic_Clock_Correction

>> and it is needed because without it, the change in the signals falling
>> from orbit to the ground are changed by gravity.
>
>You have absolutely no fvcking idea what you are talking about. Gute Nacht from Pacific Daylight Wasting Time! <shrug>

The ground software and onboard software to resolve time
synchronization tasks uses computing hardware of the SCC and
onboard computer in the Glonass and Galileo systems.

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2002papers/paper13.pdf


When GPS was designed, ground receivers would
have been too bulky if this capability would have been
designed into them

http://timeandnavigation.si.edu/multimedia-asset/psn-8-manpack-gps-receiver

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:265d0a82-c4f4-40f2...@googlegroups.com...

|What is YOUR problem? Why can't you accept that GR PREDICTED the 38 usec
|per day discrepancy? Why do you choke over the fact that because of the
|GR prediction, the first satellite put in orbit had the capability to
|correct the clock on the fly rather than put up a useless bird and waste
|a ton of money?

Your moronic GR issued a standard forbidding these correction,
but it surely had no problem with predicting the fact, that this
standard will be pissed at. Right, poor idiot?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/14/2015 2:41 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 12:24:41 AM UTC-7, Helmut Wabnig wrote:

>
>> Imagine, you are the manager at the GPS sytem,
>> you find a difference of 38 盜econds or whatever.
>> All you have to do, is to correct the clock rates.
>> You don't have to know why.
>
> Yes, engineers have come up with algorithms just to correct for all that. An example is IEEE1588. <shrug>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_Time_Protocol
>
> Or
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Time_Protocol
>

http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2014/9/21/thumb-1411309625917-science_engineering.jpg

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/14/15 7/14/15 - 2:49 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 3:30:11 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>> On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 2:37:10 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 1:37:08 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>
>>>> ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2
>>>>
>>>> Question: it's obviously singular at x = 0. What is the nature of
>>>> this singularity? Can one cross from, say, the point (1,0) to
>>>> (-1,0) ?
>>
>>> Totally irrelevant, unproductive, and childish.
>>
>> It's totally relevant simply because it's the elephant in the room:

>> if you cannot answer simple test questions like this, you cannot
>> (by definition) criticise GR or anybody's work in GR.
>
> Totally irrelevant, unproductive, and childish.

It's amusing to see KW spend far more effort in avoiding answering this question
than it took me to answer it. So much for his claimed "knowledge" of
differential geometry and tensor analysis.

But then, anybody who actually does understand the math has known for a long
time that Koobee Wublee does NOT understand it.

Sadly, it's clear to me that KW has some mental problems that compel him to
PRETEND to be an "expert" in things he OBVIOUSLY does not understand, and to be
OBLIVIOUS to explanations of his mistakes (which are legion).

Here's a hint: Why did Jan use x^4 in the denominator, and
not something simpler like x or x^2?

[I have not posted the answer for obvious reasons. But that
hint will show anyone else who has the correct answer that
I also know the correct answer.]


Tom Roberts

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:L_SdnY8WjO_U2jjI...@giganews.com...

|Sadly, it's clear to me that KW has some mental problems that compel him to
|PRETEND to be an "expert" in things he OBVIOUSLY does not understand, and
to be
|OBLIVIOUS to explanations of his mistakes (which are legion).

Everyone, who is building models of reality for real, would
laugh at your pathetic mumble about them.
PRETENDING to be an "expert" of things OBVIOUSLY not understood
is quite popular.

[paparios]

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 2:35:53 PM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
.
> Everyone, who is building models of reality for real, would
> laugh at your pathetic mumble about them.
> PRETENDING to be an "expert" of things OBVIOUSLY not understood
> is quite popular.

You are an obvious example of someone who does not understand a bit of what is being discussed, but dare to insult knowledgeable professionals such as Tom.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:0ef2ed35-8d40-48e7...@googlegroups.com...

Unfortunately, poor idiot, that's me, who is a knowledgable professionalist.
I'm earning my money for 20 years with building models of reality.
Tom is just a pathetic halfbrain layman, and every professionalist
would laugh at his pathetic mumble on the subject.

[JanPB]

Maciej suffers from the "what I know is the only thing worth knowing" syndrome.
Seen on this NG many times. I'm surprised he hasn't brought up the standard
supporting claim: "the fact that I don't know X means that I have a better
intuitive grasp of X thanks to my brilliant/divine mind not being clouded
by all those facts".

People normally don't say such things about brain surgery or law
(obviously their very physical well-being is on the line there)
but they feel abstract subjects are fair game. It's a disgusting
intellectual dishonesty on display.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 11:28:27 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:0ef2ed35-8d40-48e7...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 2:35:53 PM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> .
> > Everyone, who is building models of reality for real, would
> > laugh at your pathetic mumble about them.
> > PRETENDING to be an "expert" of things OBVIOUSLY not understood
> > is quite popular.
>
> |You are an obvious example of someone who does not understand a bit of what
> is being discussed, but dare to insult knowledgeable professionals such as
> Tom.
>
> Unfortunately, poor idiot, that's me, who is a knowledgable professionalist.
> I'm earning my money for 20 years with building models of reality.

Unfortunately, this is irrelevant.

> Tom is just a pathetic halfbrain layman, and every professionalist
> would laugh at his pathetic mumble on the subject.

Have you checked "Howl of Boeotians" yet?

--
Jan

[paparios]

You are nothing. Tom was writing the facts page 20 years ago, to make idiots like you to learn something about SR and GR. Obviously in your case it was a total loss.

You know nothing period.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:0b0b0e55-53f3-4fdf...@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 10:52:06 AM UTC-7, paparios wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 2:35:53 PM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> .
> > Everyone, who is building models of reality for real, would
> > laugh at your pathetic mumble about them.
> > PRETENDING to be an "expert" of things OBVIOUSLY not understood
> > is quite popular.
>
> You are an obvious example of someone who does not understand a bit of
> what is being discussed, but dare to insult knowledgeable professionals
> such as Tom.

|Maciej suffers from the "what I know is the only thing worth knowing"

syndrome.\

It's you, not me, suffering this. Samely as your fellow idiot Tom. And
anyone of your bunch of idiots.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:1c7d7ac5-b63c-41c3...@googlegroups.com...

>
> Unfortunately, poor idiot, that's me, who is a knowledgable
> professionalist.
> I'm earning my money for 20 years with building models of reality.
> Tom is just a pathetic halfbrain layman, and every professionalist
> would laugh at his pathetic mumble on the subject.

|You are nothing. Tom was writing the facts page 20 years ago, to make
idiots like you to learn something about SR and GR. Obviously in your case
it was a total loss.

Learning your insane shit is surely a total loss.
And teaching it is even worse.

[paparios]

That is good!!. That way you take out yourself from the genomic pool.

Most of trolls, including you, are harmless and since they know nothing and just live their worthless lives, their relevance to science is zero. The only reason some of us respond to your kind, is because it is amazing and fun to see a group of lunatics playing to do science....

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:fbf3f1ff-be9a-4813...@googlegroups.com...

|Most of trolls, including you, are harmless and since they know nothing and
just live their worthless lives, their relevance to science is zero.

And what is your relevance to science, puffed moron?

| The only reason some of us respond to your kind, is because it is amazing
and fun to see a group of lunatics playing to do science....

Your moronic ravings and spitting clearly ilustrate the fun you have.

[qw]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> Here's a hint: Why did Jan use x^4 in the denominator, and not
> something simpler like x or x^2?
>
> [I have not posted the answer for obvious reasons. But that
> hint will show anyone else who has the correct answer that I also
know
> the correct answer.]

Dont answer Koobee, this is a trick question and he is trying to save
JanPB's ass. Is obvious he did a mistake. lol

[kefischer]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 20:49:03 +0200, Maciej Wozniak <mlwo...@wp.pl>
wrote:

>Uzytkownik "JanPB" napisal w wiadomosci grup

>dyskusyjnych:0b0b0e55-53f3-4fdf...@googlegroups.com...
>
>On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 10:52:06 AM UTC-7, paparios wrote:

>> On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 2:35:53 PM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> .
>> > Everyone, who is building models of reality for real, would
>> > laugh at your pathetic mumble about them.
>> > PRETENDING to be an "expert" of things OBVIOUSLY not understood
>> > is quite popular.
>>
>> You are an obvious example of someone who does not understand a bit of
>> what is being discussed, but dare to insult knowledgeable professionals
>> such as Tom.
>
>|Maciej suffers from the "what I know is the only thing worth knowing"
>syndrome.\
>
>It's you, not me, suffering this. Samely as your fellow idiot Tom. And
>anyone of your bunch of idiots.

But you are giving Polacks a bad name.

[JanPB]

Neither Tom nor I post nonsense like "I study models in CS, therefore I am
qualified to say all physicists on the planet are dumb and relativity is
stupid" (words to that effect).

After MONTHS of posting nothing but invective, ad hominem attacks, and
vulgarisms FINALLY Sylvia has (by some amazing miracle) pulled out of
you the first-ever semi-demi-quasi-halfass-technical claim along the
lines of "LET is better than GR because I say so".

That's the sum total of your contributions here.

--
Jan

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 23:05:50 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>On 7/12/15 7/12/15 4:52 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 3:08:37 PM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> [... nothing o fsubstance]
>> As I thought. You are ashamed to admit the truth so you do an ad hom.
>
>There _IS_ no "argument" about the application of GR to the GPS. This is a
>matter of public record, which ANYBODY with the desire to look up the documents
>can settle for themselves in a few minutes with Google and a browser.

There is no argument about the fact that it doesn't matter what frequency is
used as long as all the satellite clocks are in absolute synch with each
other.

> The designers of the GPS _DID_ use GR in its design. And
> taking into account the effects of GR is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL
> to the operation of the system. [#]
>

> [#] I am discussing the actual GPS, as built; not some fictional
> satellite positioning system some people around here fantasize
> they could design differently.

No fiction here, Tom www.scisite.info/dinggps.jpg
.....No GR correction either.

>The fact that Wilson refuses to look it up says A LOT more about him than about
>either the GPS or GR.

Roberts cannot get into his head that he has been backing a loser all his
life. Einstein's theory might have been beautifully conceived and has
impressed many gullible fools but it is unfortunately based on a fallacy....
It is undoubtedly the greatest SciFi ever written.

>Tom Roberts

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 1:19:49 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 11:49:09 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> > |Maciej suffers from the "what I know is the only thing worth knowing"
> > syndrome.\

> [Extreme vulgar, ad hominem attacks perpetrated by Jan the relativistic moron snipped]

Why can’t Jan the relativistic moron concentrate on the discussions of physics? Just because Jan the relativistic moron can only talk physics with mysticism, bullshit, and just plain lies, it does not warrant Jan the relativistic moron to behave like barbarians. <shrug>

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 03:53:37 -0400, kefischer <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:16:21 +0200, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- ---

>>Nobody needs Ashby's explanations to run the GPS system.
>>Everybody who claims tha GR is necessary to run the GPS, is a liar.
>>
>>w.
>
> The Russian system uses it too, they
>just do it differently, and it is needed because
>without it, the change in the signals falling
>from orbit to the ground are changed by
>gravity.

You and the Ruskies got something right. The signals speed up by exactly the
fraction predicted by BaTh. The fractional increase is numerically identical
to the ''GR correction''. http://www.scisite.info/fallinglight.txt

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:04:39 -0700 (PDT), bpbruce...@gmail.com wrote:

>Idiot wind scientific illiterate nonsense machine. What's DSc stand for? Dumb shit crank?

I presume this idiot wears a cesium clock on his wrist when he plays golf.

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

[HW]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:32:46 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 12:15:31 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:

>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> A pretty the same way and for the same reason,
>> all the medieval sailors used the great
>> Ptolemy's model in his sailing practice.
>
>There is actually nothing outrageously wrong with the Ptolemy system,
>it's simply what we'd call now a Fourier-type series expansion of the
>heliocentric model. So yes, it's clumsy, but it's not wrong in the same
>sense other series expansion schemes in physics (e.g. Feynman diagrams)
>are not wrong. Of course the entire metaphysical edifice on top of it was
>way off but that's another story entirely.

There is nothing actually wrong with Einstein's silly theory if one is
prepared to redefine the very meaning of standard length and time in each
frame. That just makes the whole thing incredibly more complicated and totally
impractical and useless.

[kefischer]

......... posted a url that says;

"A falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s while falling from
26560km to Earth."

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=altitude+of+gps

"GPS satellites fly in medium Earth orbit (MEO) at an altitude of
approximately 20,200 km (12,550 miles)."


https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=altitude+of+glonass

"GLONASS is a global satellite navigation system, providing real time
position and velocity determination for military and civilian users. The
satellites are located in middle circular orbit at 19,100 km altitude
with a 64.8 degree inclination and a period of 11 hours and 15 minutes."


Are you 6300 km high?

[Odd Bodkin]

The first sentence you said above actually is pretty closed to being on
target. The second sentence is just nuts.

Einstein wasn't the first to realize that the assumption of absolute
simultaneity wasn't justified. Poincare realized the same thing years
earlier, and also came to understand that this meant that time durations
were also observer-dependent. Nailing down EXACTLY what is meant by
simultaneity in an operational way, as well as doing the same for
duration and length, is what turned the tide.

As for it making things more complicated and impractical... posh.

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: No. But I am 6378 km from the center of the Earth.

[kefischer]

Yeah, but you multiply times zero.

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: Oh please explain what you mean. Give me some context for your remark.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "kefischer" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:o9raqa59ico1dvrv4...@4ax.com...

>
>It's you, not me, suffering this. Samely as your fellow idiot Tom. And
>anyone of your bunch of idiots.

| But you are giving Polacks a bad name.

Some days ago I asked your bunch two questions. A little outside
of your pathetic sandpit, but related. Noone answerred. All of you
find them unworthy, and this idiot Jan even started to scream,
that they didn't happen at all.
Talking about complex "what I know is the only thing worth knowing" .

And about "bad name". I bet You mean I offend people?
Take a look to the posts of Paparios. He uses the same
phrases. Nobody tries to ashame him, somehhow?

Fuck off. You hate me, because I'm not applauding your
insane shit, and I can easily humiliate any of you.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:8fe7fd1d-5296-43e5...@googlegroups.com...

> |Maciej suffers from the "what I know is the only thing worth knowing"
> syndrome.\
>
> It's you, not me, suffering this. Samely as your fellow idiot Tom. And
> anyone of your bunch of idiots.

|Neither Tom nor I post nonsense like "I study models in CS, therefore I am
|qualified to say all physicists on the planet are dumb and relativity is
|stupid" (words to that effect).

Instead, you post nonsense like "proper clocks are unsynchronized
clocks, because WE say so".
That's the sum total of your Ingenious Shit.

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 7:19:08 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "kefischer" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:o9raqa59ico1dvrv4...@4ax.com...
>
> >
> >It's you, not me, suffering this. Samely as your fellow idiot Tom. And
> >anyone of your bunch of idiots.
>
> | But you are giving Polacks a bad name.
>
> Some days ago I asked your bunch two questions. A little outside
> of your pathetic sandpit, but related. Noone answerred. All of you
> find them unworthy, and this idiot Jan even started to scream,

Since I am that "idiot Jan" I'd like to ask you: did you or did you not claim
that ALL PHYSICISTS IN THE WORLD are stupid?

--
Jan

[JanPB]

Don't change the subject. You said all physicists were idiots, you live with
the consequences. (I'm leaving aside the little detail, easily verifiable,
that you don't post here any substance, just dumb screams and rants.)

--
Jan

[qw]

Stay cool, you are not one of them.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:d29dcbcc-79b2-48d7...@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 7:41:28 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:8fe7fd1d-5296-43e5...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > |Maciej suffers from the "what I know is the only thing worth knowing"
> > syndrome.\
> >
> > It's you, not me, suffering this. Samely as your fellow idiot Tom. And
> > anyone of your bunch of idiots.
>
> |Neither Tom nor I post nonsense like "I study models in CS, therefore I
> am
> |qualified to say all physicists on the planet are dumb and relativity is
> |stupid" (words to that effect).
>
> Instead, you post nonsense like "proper clocks are unsynchronized
> clocks, because WE say so".
> That's the sum total of your Ingenious Shit.

|Don't change the subject. You said all physicists were idiots, you live
with
|the consequences.

I did. I do. Of course.
On the other hand, you said, that "proper clocks are unsynchronized
clocks", and you're too stupid even to know there are consequences.
Samely, as anyone of your bunch of morons.

I'm leaving aside the little detail, easily verifiable, that you don't post

here any substance, just dumb screams "not even wrong" and rants.

And your "immutable mathematical truth" is obsolete for 150 years.

[JanPB]

That's correct, I am not a physicist.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 8:09:25 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:d29dcbcc-79b2-48d7...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 7:41:28 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:8fe7fd1d-5296-43e5...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > |Maciej suffers from the "what I know is the only thing worth knowing"
> > > syndrome.\
> > >
> > > It's you, not me, suffering this. Samely as your fellow idiot Tom. And
> > > anyone of your bunch of idiots.
> >
> > |Neither Tom nor I post nonsense like "I study models in CS, therefore I
> > am
> > |qualified to say all physicists on the planet are dumb and relativity is
> > |stupid" (words to that effect).
> >
> > Instead, you post nonsense like "proper clocks are unsynchronized
> > clocks, because WE say so".
> > That's the sum total of your Ingenious Shit.
>
> |Don't change the subject. You said all physicists were idiots, you live
> with
> |the consequences.
>
> I did. I do. Of course.

That means you forfeit any and all arguments. You are an unreformable moron.

> On the other hand, you said, that "proper clocks are unsynchronized
> clocks", and you're too stupid even to know there are consequences.
> Samely, as anyone of your bunch of morons.

It doesn't matter what you say.

> I'm leaving aside the little detail, easily verifiable, that you don't post
> here any substance, just dumb screams "not even wrong" and rants.

Not even wrong.

> And your "immutable mathematical truth" is obsolete for 150 years.

Not even wrong. Sheer idiocy.

--
Jan

[kefischer]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:19:01 +0200, Maciej Wozniak <mlwo...@wp.pl>
wrote:

>Uzytkownik "kefischer" napisal w wiadomosci grup

>dyskusyjnych:o9raqa59ico1dvrv4...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>>It's you, not me, suffering this. Samely as your fellow idiot Tom. And
>>anyone of your bunch of idiots.
>
>| But you are giving Polacks a bad name.
>
>Some days ago I asked your bunch two questions. A little outside
>of your pathetic sandpit, but related. Noone answerred. All of you
>find them unworthy, and this idiot Jan even started to scream,
>that they didn't happen at all.

Usenet is just like email, questions
just get ignored.

>Talking about complex "what I know is the only thing worth knowing" .
>
>And about "bad name". I bet You mean I offend people?

No, it is your failure to "join in" the
discussions without a preconceived bunch
of irrational nonsense.

>Take a look to the posts of Paparios. He uses the same
>phrases. Nobody tries to ashame him, somehhow?

He does a fair job of reciting the
current accepted thought in physics.

>Fuck off. You hate me, because I'm not applauding your
>insane shit, and I can easily humiliate any of you.

The reason everybody dislikes what
you post is the cock-sure attitude, and the
insistence that some crazy or obsolete
idea is absolutely correct no matter what.

Notice that when I talk about my
crazy shit Divergent Matter, I spend
a lot of time trying to make it clear
it is "the model" I am talking about,
whether or not I think it matches
the real world doesn't matter.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:89f23198-aa35-464f...@googlegroups.com...

> |Don't change the subject. You said all physicists were idiots, you live
> with
> |the consequences.
>
> I did. I do. Of course.

|That means you forfeit any and all arguments. You are an unreformable
moron.

By logic of an idiot, it means. You're not a physicist,
but you're surely an idiot.

> On the other hand, you said, that "proper clocks are unsynchronized
> clocks", and you're too stupid even to know there are consequences.
> Samely, as anyone of your bunch of morons.

|It doesn't matter what you say.

Truth never matters to an idiot.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 9:55:43 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Truth never matters to an idiot.

Which explains why you are a liar

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "kefischer" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:qpvcqa57v6gnusbet...@4ax.com...

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:19:01 +0200, Maciej Wozniak <mlwo...@wp.pl>
wrote:

>Uzytkownik "kefischer" napisal w wiadomosci grup
>dyskusyjnych:o9raqa59ico1dvrv4...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>>It's you, not me, suffering this. Samely as your fellow idiot Tom. And
>>anyone of your bunch of idiots.
>
>| But you are giving Polacks a bad name.
>
>Some days ago I asked your bunch two questions. A little outside
>of your pathetic sandpit, but related. Noone answerred. All of you
>find them unworthy, and this idiot Jan even started to scream,
>that they didn't happen at all.

| Usenet is just like email, questions
|just get ignored.

It's obvious, that bunch of morons with syndrome
"what I know is the only thing worth knowing" is
ignoring questions.

>Talking about complex "what I know is the only thing worth knowing" .
>
>And about "bad name". I bet You mean I offend people?

| No, it is your failure to "join in" the
|discussions without a preconceived bunch
|of irrational nonsense.

Oh, i see. I'm giving all Polacks a bad name, because
I have a different opinion, than yours.

| The reason everybody dislikes what
|you post is the cock-sure attitude, and the
|insistence that some crazy or obsolete
|idea is absolutely correct no matter what.

Oppositely, it's your insistence, that some crazy

or obsolete idea is absolutely correct no matter

what makes you disliking what I post.

| Notice that when I talk about my
|crazy shit Divergent Matter, I spend
|a lot of time trying to make it clear
|it is "the model" I am talking about,
|whether or not I think it matches
|the real world doesn't matter.

Too bad, you don't know, waht a model is.
Too bad, you're mistaking real world with
one from your imagination... Clocks from
real world don't indicate your moronic
time dilation. They indicate t'=t. But, talk
to a fanatic.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:7693b612-536a-4dfb...@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 9:55:43 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Truth never matters to an idiot.

|Which explains why you are a liar

A lie. As expected from a relativistic moron.

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 8:55:43 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:89f23198-aa35-464f...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > |Don't change the subject. You said all physicists were idiots, you live
> > with
> > |the consequences.
> >
> > I did. I do. Of course.
>
> |That means you forfeit any and all arguments. You are an unreformable
> moron.
>
> By logic of an idiot, it means. You're not a physicist,
> but you're surely an idiot.

Again: anyone who says, with a straight face, that all physicists
are stupid has a mental problem of some kind. There is nothing to
discuss rationally with such a person.

> > On the other hand, you said, that "proper clocks are unsynchronized
> > clocks", and you're too stupid even to know there are consequences.
> > Samely, as anyone of your bunch of morons.
>
> |It doesn't matter what you say.
>
> Truth never matters to an idiot.

What "truth"? You say that all physicists are idiots for starters.
Nothing you post will carry any weight and all your talk about "models"
is just garbage.

--
Jan

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:564be42c-5068-4fab...@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 8:55:43 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:89f23198-aa35-464f...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > |Don't change the subject. You said all physicists were idiots, you live
> > with
> > |the consequences.
> >
> > I did. I do. Of course.
>
> |That means you forfeit any and all arguments. You are an unreformable
> moron.
>
> By logic of an idiot, it means. You're not a physicist,
> but you're surely an idiot.

|Again: anyone who says, with a straight face, that all physicists
|are stupid has a mental problem of some kind. There is nothing to
|discuss rationally with such a person.

We all have a mental problems of some kind. You, for instance,
are a complete moron, and seeing incomfortable questions
you deny their existence. Don't you?

Stupidity is a well known for centuries effect, well described...
oppositely to your black holes, for instance.

And, unfortunately, your moronic guru was so stupid, that
he has put stupidity on his - and your - banner. Lack of
common sense, you're so proud about, and stupidity, are
just two names of the same thing. Check in a dictionary.

> > On the other hand, you said, that "proper clocks are unsynchronized
> > clocks", and you're too stupid even to know there are consequences.
> > Samely, as anyone of your bunch of morons.
>
> |It doesn't matter what you say.
>
> Truth never matters to an idiot.

|What "truth"?

The truth as written above. While I said, that physicists are a bunch of
idiots knowing consequences and ready for them, you said, that "proper
clocks are unsynchronized clocks", and you're too stupid even to notice
there could be some consequences.
You see, in the world we inhabit, when you state something as "proper",
and/or when you state something as "standard", you should at least
try to keep it yourself. Otherwise, you look like a complete moron. And
you do.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 11:40:23 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> We all have a mental problems of some kind.

Yes, we do, and a major part of them is you.

> You, for instance, are a complete moron,

Anyone who claims such a thing reveals the severity of his own mental problems.

> and seeing incomfortable

There is no such word, an indication of more mental problems.

> Stupidity is a well known for centuries effect, well described...
> oppositely to your black holes, for instance.

Yes, a stupid person does not believe in black holes.

> And, unfortunately, your moronic guru was so stupid,

More proof of your severe mental imbalance. The more you post, the more
you appear to have less intelligence.

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 10:40:23 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:564be42c-5068-4fab...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 8:55:43 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:89f23198-aa35-464f...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > |Don't change the subject. You said all physicists were idiots, you live
> > > with
> > > |the consequences.
> > >
> > > I did. I do. Of course.
> >
> > |That means you forfeit any and all arguments. You are an unreformable
> > moron.
> >
> > By logic of an idiot, it means. You're not a physicist,
> > but you're surely an idiot.
>
> |Again: anyone who says, with a straight face, that all physicists
> |are stupid has a mental problem of some kind. There is nothing to
> |discuss rationally with such a person.
>
> We all have a mental problems of some kind.

There is nothing to discuss until you retract the idiotic claim
I mentioned.

--
Jan

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:30bddf45-84c5-48d6...@googlegroups.com...

There is nothing to discuss until you have an argument
different, than "you must believe physicists, because they
are wise beyond your imagination".
Of course, you're an idiot. There is nothing to discuss
with you anyway.


--
Jan

[JanPB]

I never said that. (Hint: the negation of "all physicists are dumb"
is NOT "all physicists are wise".)

> Of course, you're an idiot. There is nothing to discuss
> with you anyway.

You don't post any discussions, just rants and invective devoid of content.

--
Jan

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:195103c5-3ec7-430c...@googlegroups.com...

And I never said you said "all".
You're too stupid to understand the meaning of your
proposition, but I'm not.
What you are proposing, is a blind faith. Exactly. Samely,
as your fellows, you lost any moderation. You're
just expecting common mortals to listen to you and
obey you in whatever you'll say.
Surprise, poor idiot.

> Of course, you're an idiot. There is nothing to discuss
> with you anyway.

|You don't post any discussions, just rants and invective devoid of content.

Sure. And I never asked questions I asked, because
you just didn't like them. Right?

You're an idiot, puffed to unconciousness. The only form of
discussion you could accept is, when opponent listen to you
and say "aaaaaaahhhh...."

[JanPB]

Squirm all you want. Until you retract your claim that all physicists
are stupid, no rational person will talk to you here.

--
Jan

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:2a3915a5-fb05-47fb...@googlegroups.com...

|Squirm all you want. Until you retract your claim that all physicists
|are stupid, no rational person will talk to you here.

There are no rational persons here, poor idiot.
You're just a brainwashed court of a naked emperor.

And You're still talking to me.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

This guy is a complete idiot. I'm not going to bother trying to educate him
any more. He's a hopeless case.

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

[JanPB]

--
Jan

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:34:05 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/14/2015 4:16 PM, HW wrote:

>> There is nothing actually wrong with Einstein's silly theory if one is
>> prepared to redefine the very meaning of standard length and time in each
>> frame. That just makes the whole thing incredibly more complicated and totally
>> impractical and useless.
>>
>
>The first sentence you said above actually is pretty closed to being on
>target. The second sentence is just nuts.

I can't see why. What is the point of measuring anything if what what is being
measured depends on the method used, purely by definition?

>Einstein wasn't the first to realize that the assumption of absolute
>simultaneity wasn't justified. Poincare realized the same thing years
>earlier, and also came to understand that this meant that time durations
>were also observer-dependent. Nailing down EXACTLY what is meant by
>simultaneity in an operational way, as well as doing the same for
>duration and length, is what turned the tide.

Yes....but the fact that Einstein plagiarized Poincare doesn't make his RoS
nonsense any more credible. Many theories were being put forward at the time
after all attempts to measure Earth's absolute speed failed.

The basic error was to associate simultaneity with light and apparently still
is.

>As for it making things more complicated and impractical... posh.

Well, fortunately Einstein's theory has never been vital in any aspect of
technology and has done little harm.

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:09:17 +0200, Maciej Wo?niak <mlwo...@wp.pl> wrote:

>U?ytkownik "JanPB" napisa? w wiadomo?ci grup

>> > It's you, not me, suffering this. Samely as your fellow idiot Tom. And
>> > anyone of your bunch of idiots.

Shit.
>
>|Don't change the subject. You said all physicists were idiots, you live
>with
>|the consequences.
>
>I did. I do. Of course.
>On the other hand, you said, that "proper clocks are unsynchronized
>clocks", and you're too stupid even to know there are consequences.
>Samely, as anyone of your bunch of morons.
>
>I'm leaving aside the little detail, easily verifiable, that you don't post
>here any substance, just dumb screams "not even wrong" and rants.

He is nothing but a religious preacher...not worth an argument.

If simultaneity was not absolute, the whole GPS system would fail.
It operates entirely on the principle that all the satellite clocks are in
absolute synch with each other.

>And your "immutable mathematical truth" is obsolete for 150 years.
>

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

[kefischer]

You couldn't educate a 5 year-old,
except with nonsense.

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 2:09:28 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:09:17 +0200, Maciej Wo?niak <mlwo...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> >U?ytkownik "JanPB" napisa? w wiadomo?ci grup
>
> >> > It's you, not me, suffering this. Samely as your fellow idiot Tom. And
> >> > anyone of your bunch of idiots.
> Shit.
> >
> >|Don't change the subject. You said all physicists were idiots, you live
> >with
> >|the consequences.
> >
> >I did. I do. Of course.
> >On the other hand, you said, that "proper clocks are unsynchronized
> >clocks", and you're too stupid even to know there are consequences.
> >Samely, as anyone of your bunch of morons.
> >
> >I'm leaving aside the little detail, easily verifiable, that you don't post
> >here any substance, just dumb screams "not even wrong" and rants.
>
> He is nothing but a religious preacher...not worth an argument.

Unfortunately, this is just empty rhetoric. You cannot answer simplest
technical questions in classical (Newtonian) mechanics, so your claim
"not worth an argument" doesn't sound terribly convincing.

> If simultaneity was not absolute, the whole GPS system would fail.

Again, leaving aside the little detail that this claim is false,
you are simply not qualified to make such claims.

> It operates entirely on the principle that all the satellite clocks are in
> absolute synch with each other.

Would you trust a surgeon, about to operate on you, who did not know
what "blood pressure" was?

> >And your "immutable mathematical truth" is obsolete for 150 years.

That's one of Maciej's top nonsense statements. He actually thinks
he has a point.

--
Jan

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/15/2015 3:59 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:34:05 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/14/2015 4:16 PM, HW wrote:
>
>>> There is nothing actually wrong with Einstein's silly theory if one is
>>> prepared to redefine the very meaning of standard length and time in each
>>> frame. That just makes the whole thing incredibly more complicated and totally
>>> impractical and useless.
>>>
>>
>> The first sentence you said above actually is pretty closed to being on
>> target. The second sentence is just nuts.
>
> I can't see why. What is the point of measuring anything if what what is being
> measured depends on the method used, purely by definition?

It's a fact of life, from what I can see. Measured quantities are
defined operationally, and do not necessarily exist independent of that
operational definition. Newton made this same comment regarding both
motion and absolute vs. relative space and time. As mentioned before,
Poincare was the first to point out that there IS NO property of
simultaneity independent of the operational definition of how that is to
be determined. There are a slew of other such quantities, including
electric field, momentum, etc.

The fact that nature has let you down by not having quantities that can
be identified independent of an operational specification of measurement
is yours to deal with.

>
>> Einstein wasn't the first to realize that the assumption of absolute
>> simultaneity wasn't justified. Poincare realized the same thing years
>> earlier, and also came to understand that this meant that time durations
>> were also observer-dependent. Nailing down EXACTLY what is meant by
>> simultaneity in an operational way, as well as doing the same for
>> duration and length, is what turned the tide.
>
> Yes....but the fact that Einstein plagiarized Poincare doesn't make his RoS
> nonsense any more credible. Many theories were being put forward at the time
> after all attempts to measure Earth's absolute speed failed.

Yes, that's right. And Einstein's version of it was only one of them.
However, each of the theories made ADDITIONAL claims beyond the
experimental results they were intended to explain, and those ADDITIONAL
claims were subject to experimental test AFTER the proposal of the
theories. This, I'm sure you know, is how candidate theories are vetted
against each other, by comparison with later experimental tests. After a
number of such tests, the only survivor among all the candidate theories
at the time is the one that makes you gag, which is a very odd response
for a putative scientist to have to a theory that passes experimental test.

>
> The basic error was to associate simultaneity with light and apparently still
> is.

But it isn't.

>
>> As for it making things more complicated and impractical... posh.
>
> Well, fortunately Einstein's theory has never been vital in any aspect of
> technology and has done little harm.

Well, it depends on what you mean by vital. If you say that any design
informed by relativity could have just as well been informed by trial
and error and ad hoc adjustments, then you are of course right. Which is
the same complaint that engineer-adoring Koobee Wublee has. But of
course, a COMPETENT engineer will use any guiding principle that is
available that short circuits trial and error and ad hoc adjustments,
and so in that sense relativity has been very, very useful.

>
> __
>
> Henry Wilson DSc.
>


--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/15/2015 3:59 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

> Yes....but the fact that Einstein plagiarized Poincare doesn't make his RoS
> nonsense any more credible.

By the way, it's plain that Einstein knew about Poincare's earlier
comment that simultaneity is not absolute prior to 1905, and it
undoubtedly had an impact on his thinking. You seem to have a
bone-headed idea that Einstein should only be credited for the work he
did if he invented it wholly himself with no precursor ideas from anyone
else. I have no idea why you would think so -- this has never been true
of any physicist and Nobel-quality work.

However, it's also true that Poincare made this comment and could not
progress it, could not follow the implications of it. That, Einstein
did. And even when Einstein VALIDATED Poincare's conjecture by a
testable theory with the same conclusion, Poincare found it impossible
to understand relativity himself. For example, Poincare came up with a
derivation of the same Lorentz-FitzGerald transformations to account for
the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, but he based his
argument on THREE assumptions: a) constancy of the speed of light, b)
independence of laws of motion with reference frame, and c) a change to
electrodynamics such that there is a dynamical shortening of the lengths
of rods in the direction of motion. He had no grip on how (c) was not an
independent assumption and followed directly from (a) and (b) as a
KINEMATIC, not a dynamic, consequence.

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 3:05:17 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/15/2015 3:59 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> > Yes....but the fact that Einstein plagiarized Poincare doesn't make his RoS
> > nonsense any more credible.
>
> By the way, it's plain that Einstein knew about Poincare's earlier
> comment that simultaneity is not absolute prior to 1905, and it
> undoubtedly had an impact on his thinking. You seem to have a
> bone-headed idea that Einstein should only be credited for the work he
> did if he invented it wholly himself with no precursor ideas from anyone
> else. I have no idea why you would think so -- this has never been true
> of any physicist and Nobel-quality work.

Because the relativity "critics" around here are pathologically obsessed
with Einstein as a person. I don't know why they don't obsess so much with,
say, de Broglie or Gell-Mann, but there is no discussing mental problems.

--
Jan

[qw]

JanPB wrote:

>> By the way, it's plain that Einstein knew about Poincare's earlier
>> comment that simultaneity is not absolute prior to 1905, and it
>> undoubtedly had an impact on his thinking. You seem to have a
>> bone-headed idea that Einstein should only be credited for the work he
>> did if he invented it wholly himself with no precursor ideas from
>> anyone else. I have no idea why you would think so -- this has never
>> been true of any physicist and Nobel-quality work.
>
> Because the relativity "critics" around here are pathologically obsessed
> with Einstein as a person. I don't know why they don't obsess so much
> with, say, de Broglie or Gell-Mann, but there is no discussing mental
> problems.

Because Gell-Mann was smart but lacked confidence, being afraid to come up
with theories.

"The LHCb experiment at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider has reported the
discovery of a class of particles known as pentaquarks. The collaboration
has submitted today a paper reporting these findings to the journal
Physical Review Letters."

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:51:21 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/15/2015 3:59 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:34:05 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/14/2015 4:16 PM, HW wrote:
>>
>>>> There is nothing actually wrong with Einstein's silly theory if one is
>>>> prepared to redefine the very meaning of standard length and time in each
>>>> frame. That just makes the whole thing incredibly more complicated and totally
>>>> impractical and useless.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The first sentence you said above actually is pretty closed to being on
>>> target. The second sentence is just nuts.
>>
>> I can't see why. What is the point of measuring anything if what what is being
>> measured depends on the method used, purely by definition?
>
>It's a fact of life, from what I can see. Measured quantities are
>defined operationally, and do not necessarily exist independent of that
>operational definition.

Only in your silly world.

>Newton made this same comment regarding both
>motion and absolute vs. relative space and time.

No he didn't.

>As mentioned before,
>Poincare was the first to point out that there IS NO property of
>simultaneity independent of the operational definition of how that is to
>be determined. There are a slew of other such quantities, including
>electric field, momentum, etc.

poincare wasn't much better informed than Einstein.

>The fact that nature has let you down by not having quantities that can
>be identified independent of an operational specification of measurement
>is yours to deal with.
>
>>
>>> Einstein wasn't the first to realize that the assumption of absolute
>>> simultaneity wasn't justified. Poincare realized the same thing years
>>> earlier, and also came to understand that this meant that time durations
>>> were also observer-dependent. Nailing down EXACTLY what is meant by
>>> simultaneity in an operational way, as well as doing the same for
>>> duration and length, is what turned the tide.
>>
>> Yes....but the fact that Einstein plagiarized Poincare doesn't make his RoS
>> nonsense any more credible. Many theories were being put forward at the time
>> after all attempts to measure Earth's absolute speed failed.
>
>Yes, that's right. And Einstein's version of it was only one of them.
>However, each of the theories made ADDITIONAL claims beyond the
>experimental results they were intended to explain, and those ADDITIONAL
>claims were subject to experimental test AFTER the proposal of the
>theories. This, I'm sure you know, is how candidate theories are vetted
>against each other, by comparison with later experimental tests. After a
>number of such tests, the only survivor among all the candidate theories
>at the time is the one that makes you gag, which is a very odd response
>for a putative scientist to have to a theory that passes experimental test.

There has been no experiment that directly and convincingly supports
Einstein's silly theory. End of story.

>> The basic error was to associate simultaneity with light and apparently still
>> is.
>
>But it isn't.

Of course it is. you simply don't know anything about the theory you are
defending.

>>> As for it making things more complicated and impractical... posh.
>>
>> Well, fortunately Einstein's theory has never been vital in any aspect of
>> technology and has done little harm.
>
>Well, it depends on what you mean by vital. If you say that any design
>informed by relativity could have just as well been informed by trial
>and error and ad hoc adjustments, then you are of course right. Which is
>the same complaint that engineer-adoring Koobee Wublee has. But of
>course, a COMPETENT engineer will use any guiding principle that is
>available that short circuits trial and error and ad hoc adjustments,
>and so in that sense relativity has been very, very useful.

Fortunately, Einstein's theory has never been used in engineering.
Even if it had, the damage would be minimal because it would only ever affect
about the tenth significant figure..

>> __
>>
>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>>

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 4:48:34 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
> There has been no experiment that directly and convincingly supports
> Einstein's silly theory. End of story.

Unfortunately, your opinion on the subject does not mean anything.

--
Jan

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:44:12 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 2:09:28 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:09:17 +0200, Maciej Wo?niak <mlwo...@wp.pl> wrote:

>> >
>> >I'm leaving aside the little detail, easily verifiable, that you don't post
>> >here any substance, just dumb screams "not even wrong" and rants.
>>
>> He is nothing but a religious preacher...not worth an argument.
>
>Unfortunately, this is just empty rhetoric. You cannot answer simplest
>technical questions in classical (Newtonian) mechanics, so your claim
>"not worth an argument" doesn't sound terribly convincing.
>
>> If simultaneity was not absolute, the whole GPS system would fail.
>
>Again, leaving aside the little detail that this claim is false,
>you are simply not qualified to make such claims.

You are not qualified in anything except preaching balony...

>> It operates entirely on the principle that all the satellite clocks are in
>> absolute synch with each other.
>
>Would you trust a surgeon, about to operate on you, who did not know
>what "blood pressure" was?
>
>> >And your "immutable mathematical truth" is obsolete for 150 years.
>
>That's one of Maciej's top nonsense statements. He actually thinks
>he has a point.

It would be impossible to rate your nonsense statements, There are so many of
them that have no point at all.

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

[kefischer]

Newton thanks you, but says you are full of shit.

[John Gogo]

Mr. Bodkin says: The fact that nature has let you down by not having quantities that can be identified independent of an operational specification of measurement is yours to deal with.

I think it is ours to deal with- and I can see you are bothered by it. It is nice to see the physics passion.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 10:21:59 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 8:55:43 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> > By logic of an idiot, it means. You're not a physicist,
> > but you're surely an idiot.
>
> Again: anyone who says, with a straight face, that all physicists
> are stupid has a mental problem of some kind.

Anyone who cannot understand the relationships among the geometry, the metric, and the coordinate system are just stupid imbeciles, autistic retards, or relativistic morons. Since all physicists think the metric is the geometry, all physicists are stupid imbeciles, autistic retards, or relativistic morons, no? Unless each has an excuse not to be able to understand the very simple relationships among the geometry, the metric, and the coordinate system. <shrug>

> There is nothing to discuss rationally with such a person.

What is Jan’s excuse? <shrug>

> > Truth never matters to an idiot.
>
> What "truth"?

There are many subjects of truth. The relationships among the geometry, the metric, and the coordinate system are one such. The fatal contradiction of the Twin paradox is another. <shrug>

> [rest of ranting nonsense snipped]

[John Gogo]

It becomes an identification process. We have do identify the meaning of our experiments. What good is an experiment when it only supports a self-fulfilling prophesy?

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Poincare obviously dropped the idea because he could see how stupid it was.
Einstein was not bright enough to see the joke.

__

Henry Wilson DSc.