116 views

Skip to first unread message

Sep 26, 2021, 10:09:15 AMSep 26

to

I've pulled together the material I've posted recently on the "A

possible proof" thread about the gravitational time dilation equation

being inconsistent with the outcome at the reunion of the twin paradox,

and I've put it on the viXra repository:

http://viXra.org/abs/2109.0076?ref=12745236

Here is the title and abstract:

"An Inconsistency Between the Gravitational Time Dilation Equation and

the Twin Paradox"

Abstract:

It is shown in this monograph that the Gravitational Time Dilation

Equation, together with the well-known Equivalence Principle relating

gravitation and acceleration, produce results that contradict the

required outcome at the reunion of the twins in the famous twin

‘paradox’. The Equivalence Principle Version of the Gravitational Time

Dilation Equation (the “EPVGTD” equation) produces results that say

that, when the traveling twin (he) instantaneously changes his velocity,

in the direction TOWARD the distant home twin (her), that he will

conclude that her age instantaneously becomes INFINITE. It is well known

that, according to her, at their reunion, she will be older than him,

but both of their ages will be FINITE. The twins clearly MUST be in

agreement about their respective ages at the reunion, because they are

co-located there.

I've also published it on Amazon under the same title. It can be found

most easily on Amazon by searching on my full name:

"Michael Leon Fontenot" .

When my manuscript comes up, you can click on "Look Inside", and on the

back cover, there is a small photo of yours truly, impersonating an old

codger.

The remaining question that I'd like the answer to, is "Has the

gravitational time dilation equation been experimentally confirmed for

arguments of the exponential function that are large enough to test the

non-linear portion of the exponential curve?" I.e., is it possible that

the "modified linearized Gravitational Time Dilation equation (the MLGTD

equation, in Section 7 of my monograph) is the correct GDT equation, and

that the exponential version is incorrect?

Sep 26, 2021, 10:15:41 AMSep 26

to

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:09:15 AM UTC-7, crank Mike_Fontenot cranked himself:

>

>snip link to utter rubbish<

> I've pulled together the material I've posted recently on the "A

> possible proof" thread about the gravitational time dilation equation

> being inconsistent with the outcome at the reunion of the twin paradox,

> and I've put it on the viXra crank repository:
> possible proof" thread about the gravitational time dilation equation

> being inconsistent with the outcome at the reunion of the twin paradox,

>

>snip link to utter rubbish<

Sep 26, 2021, 6:55:21 PMSep 26

to

"infinite" will do, it's sometimes the clearest mathematical value (or,

you know, lack thereof) that in almost all senses of the word is "> 0 and > 1".

Whatever's infinite through it's usually expected to normalize out, in terms

of what is the tractable, that one figures that for example the crossing twins

meeting would see each other the same age.

That there are always virtual crossing twins....

It's expected if they're twins that they're born together.

Then, basically into the black hole, it's either time stops in

the black hole or there otherwise usually the light cone is

outside the black hole.

I think it's fair that after Bell's paradox are both intepretations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox

"... in addition, the expression for the distance

increase between two observers having the same

proper acceleration becomes also more complicated

in the momentary frame."

Sep 26, 2021, 11:05:48 PMSep 26

to

On 9/26/21 9:09 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:

> [...] when the traveling twin (he) instantaneously changes his velocity,

That, of course, is NONSENSE. You cannot possibly hope to get anything

sensible that way.

Hint: infinities do not obey the rules of arithmetic.

You MUST use a finite acceleration applied for some nonzero duration to

perform the calculation. Then, if you wish, you can take the limit as

the acceleration increases without bound while keeping the

acceleration*duration constant (so there is a constant delta v). You

must, of course, use a single inertial frame to reference all those

quantities (most likely that of the stay-at-home twin).

I believe Einstein did precisely that in one of his papers (I have no

reference; probably 1907-1911 or so).

Tom Roberts

> [...] when the traveling twin (he) instantaneously changes his velocity,

That, of course, is NONSENSE. You cannot possibly hope to get anything

sensible that way.

Hint: infinities do not obey the rules of arithmetic.

You MUST use a finite acceleration applied for some nonzero duration to

perform the calculation. Then, if you wish, you can take the limit as

the acceleration increases without bound while keeping the

acceleration*duration constant (so there is a constant delta v). You

must, of course, use a single inertial frame to reference all those

quantities (most likely that of the stay-at-home twin).

I believe Einstein did precisely that in one of his papers (I have no

reference; probably 1907-1911 or so).

Tom Roberts

Sep 27, 2021, 1:49:19 AMSep 27

to

On Monday, 27 September 2021 at 05:05:48 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

> On 9/26/21 9:09 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:

> > [...] when the traveling twin (he) instantaneously changes his velocity,

>

> That, of course, is NONSENSE. You cannot possibly hope to get anything

> sensible that way.

Is that the problem?? The utter nonsense is all yours: of course he can, it's just two segments on a diagram, plus it can even be done, just use two "travelling twins" properly arranged...
> On 9/26/21 9:09 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:

> > [...] when the traveling twin (he) instantaneously changes his velocity,

>

> That, of course, is NONSENSE. You cannot possibly hope to get anything

> sensible that way.

You are a fucking disgrace, Tom Roberts...

*Plonk*

Julio

Sep 27, 2021, 2:50:00 AMSep 27

to

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:09:15 AM UTC-7, Mike_Fontenot wrote:

says that the length of a timelike geodesic is equal to the elapse proper time.

So there can be no contradiction (unless you claim that you've found a

contradiction in Riemannian geometry itself).

--

Jan

Sep 27, 2021, 4:20:40 AMSep 27

to

the clocks of GPS keep indicating t'=t, just like all serious

clocks always did.

> So there can be no contradiction (unless you claim that you've found a

> contradiction in Riemannian geometry itself).

contradiction.

Sep 27, 2021, 10:31:40 AMSep 27

to

The twins were at some point together for them to meet again.

If we might all improve our rhetoric then what's interesting

in various physical interpretations of theories would be something

more to enjoy than plain contrast.

It is so that in various theories that "gravity's speed is infinite", while

here of course "sci.physics.relativity", it's fair to say that otherwise

unqualifiedly the usual theories are one or the other or both of SR, GR.

(That qualifiedly there are other theories what happen to interpret them.)

Sep 27, 2021, 5:02:43 PMSep 27

to

On 9/27/21 12:49 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

> On Monday, 27 September 2021 at 05:05:48 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

>> On 9/26/21 9:09 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:

>>> [...] when the traveling twin (he) instantaneously changes his velocity,

>>

>> That, of course, is NONSENSE. You cannot possibly hope to get anything

>> sensible that way.

>

> Is that the problem??

Yes, it is. He is attempting to use the continuous mathematics of
> On Monday, 27 September 2021 at 05:05:48 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

>> On 9/26/21 9:09 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:

>>> [...] when the traveling twin (he) instantaneously changes his velocity,

>>

>> That, of course, is NONSENSE. You cannot possibly hope to get anything

>> sensible that way.

>

> Is that the problem??

"gravitational time dilation" within a discontinuity. It OUGHT to be

obvious that this is hopeless (and is, to anyone who understands basic

math).

Tom Roberts

Sep 27, 2021, 7:12:54 PMSep 27

to

On 9/27/21 3:02 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:

>

> He is attempting to use the continuous mathematics of

> "gravitational time dilation" within a discontinuity.

>

If you look at the table in Section 3, you'll see that I start with a
>

> He is attempting to use the continuous mathematics of

> "gravitational time dilation" within a discontinuity.

>

acceleration duration tau of 1.0 second. Theta is 1.317, so the

acceleration "A" is

A = theta / tau = 1.317 / 1.0 = 1.317 ls/s/s.

So the acceleration is finite and the duration is positive.

Then, going down in the table, on each line I reduce the duration and

increase the acceleration, keeping the product constant (and keeping the

acceleration finite and the duration positive). I continue doing that

until my calculator overflows. But it's clear that as tau approaches

zero (and "A" approaches infinity, while keeping their product

constant), the change in the age of the HF ISN'T approaching a finite

limit ... it's CLEARLY heading to infinity, as I claimed.

Sep 27, 2021, 8:00:21 PMSep 27

to

Mike Fontenot wrote:

> I've pulled together the material I've posted recently on the "A

> possible proof" thread about the gravitational time dilation equation

> being inconsistent with the outcome at the reunion of the twin paradox,

> and I've put it on the viXra repository:

Also known as “Crackpot’s Heaven”.
> I've pulled together the material I've posted recently on the "A

> possible proof" thread about the gravitational time dilation equation

> being inconsistent with the outcome at the reunion of the twin paradox,

> and I've put it on the viXra repository:

> […]

> The Equivalence Principle Version of the Gravitational Time

> Dilation Equation (the “EPVGTD” equation) produces results that say

> that, when the traveling twin (he) instantaneously changes his velocity,

> in the direction TOWARD the distant home twin (her),

twin paradox. Neither is general relativity required:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity)>

> that he will conclude that her age instantaneously becomes INFINITE.

he would observe (if he could; he cannot) her aging instantaneously, i.e.

faster than usual (e.g. for him she could be 4 years older than when he

started just before he turned around, but 6 years older just after he turned

around.

The spacetime diagram would be

t

^

:

:\

: \

:_ \

:_'-\

:_'-.\

: '-._\

:_.-' /

:_.-'/

:_.-/

:_./

: /

:/

'------> x

where I have drawn the lines of simultaneity. One can see that at the

turning point there are no lines of simultaneity intersecting the "middle

age" of the home twin. This means that in the extreme (and unphysical) case

of infinite acceleration, these ages of the home twin simply do not belong

to the traveling twin’s reality.

As his velocity cannot reverse instantaneously (that would require infinite

acceleration which is as unphysical as it would be deadly for him), he would

(if he could; again, he cannot) observe her aging in an accelerated way

until his velocity had reversed from v⃗ to −v⃗, provided that all his motion

is along one axis (typically, her x-axis).

> It is well known that, according to her, at their reunion, she will be

> older than him, but both of their ages will be FINITE.

> The twins clearly MUST be in agreement about their respective ages at the

> reunion, because they are co-located there.

proper time has elapsed in the (his) "moving" frame than in the (here)

"rest" frame.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Resolution_of_the_paradox_in_special_relativity>

> The remaining question that I'd like the answer to, is "Has the

> gravitational time dilation equation been experimentally confirmed for

> arguments of the exponential function

> that are large enough to test the non-linear portion of the exponential

> curve?"

> I.e., is it possible that the "modified linearized Gravitational Time

> Dilation equation (the MLGTD equation, in Section 7 of my monograph) is

> the correct GDT equation, and that the exponential version is incorrect?

PointedEars

--

Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door

when he went camping?

A: 'Gone fission'.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Sep 27, 2021, 11:57:27 PMSep 27

to

Mike Fontenot wrote:

> I've pulled together the material I've posted recently on the "A

> possible proof" thread about the gravitational time dilation equation

> being inconsistent with the outcome at the reunion of the twin paradox,

> and I've put it on the viXra repository:

Also known as “Crackpot’s Heaven”.
> I've pulled together the material I've posted recently on the "A

> possible proof" thread about the gravitational time dilation equation

> being inconsistent with the outcome at the reunion of the twin paradox,

> and I've put it on the viXra repository:

> […]

> The Equivalence Principle Version of the Gravitational Time

> Dilation Equation (the “EPVGTD” equation) produces results that say

> that, when the traveling twin (he) instantaneously changes his velocity,

> in the direction TOWARD the distant home twin (her),

This is physically impossible and not required for the explanation of the

twin paradox. Neither is general relativity required:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity)>

twin paradox. Neither is general relativity required:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity)>

> that he will conclude that her age instantaneously becomes INFINITE.

> It is well known that, according to her, at their reunion, she will be

> older than him, but both of their ages will be FINITE.

> older than him, but both of their ages will be FINITE.

An age is always finite. That it would not be is merely your fantasy.

> The twins clearly MUST be in agreement about their respective ages at the

> reunion, because they are co-located there.

> reunion, because they are co-located there.

And they are. According to special relativity already. As simply less

proper time has elapsed in the (his) "moving" frame than in the (her)
"rest" frame.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Resolution_of_the_paradox_in_special_relativity>

> The remaining question that I'd like the answer to, is "Has the

> gravitational time dilation equation been experimentally confirmed for

> arguments of the exponential function

The exponential function has nothing to do with this.

> that are large enough to test the non-linear portion of the exponential

> curve?"

> curve?"

There is no “exponential curve” except in your fantasies.

> I.e., is it possible that the "modified linearized Gravitational Time

> Dilation equation (the MLGTD equation, in Section 7 of my monograph) is

> the correct GDT equation, and that the exponential version is incorrect?

> Dilation equation (the MLGTD equation, in Section 7 of my monograph) is

> the correct GDT equation, and that the exponential version is incorrect?

Sep 28, 2021, 1:40:33 AMSep 28

to

** The utter nonsense is all yours: of course he can, it's just two segments on a diagram, plus it can even be done, just use two "travelling twins" properly arranged. **

You fucking agent of the enemy...

*Plonk*

Julio

Sep 28, 2021, 1:45:59 AMSep 28

to

On Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 05:57:27 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Rather, one twin gets there BEFORE THE OTHER, and viceversa. As I have been explaining for months now.

You fucking illogical idiots and the extension of life and intelligence on this planet...

*Plonk*

Julio

> Mike Fontenot wrote:

> > The twins clearly MUST be in agreement about their respective ages at the

> > reunion, because they are co-located there.

>

> And they are. According to special relativity already. As simply less

> proper time has elapsed in the (his) "moving" frame than in the (her)

> "rest" frame.

>

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Resolution_of_the_paradox_in_special_relativity>

That's all and simply *completely wrong*, the whole standard little tale of clocks slowing down...
> > The twins clearly MUST be in agreement about their respective ages at the

> > reunion, because they are co-located there.

>

> And they are. According to special relativity already. As simply less

> proper time has elapsed in the (his) "moving" frame than in the (her)

> "rest" frame.

>

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Resolution_of_the_paradox_in_special_relativity>

Rather, one twin gets there BEFORE THE OTHER, and viceversa. As I have been explaining for months now.

You fucking illogical idiots and the extension of life and intelligence on this planet...

*Plonk*

Julio

Sep 28, 2021, 3:57:28 AMSep 28

to

On Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 05:57:27 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> And they are. According to special relativity already. As simply less

> proper time has elapsed in the (his) "moving" frame than in the (her)

> "rest" frame.

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep elapsing
> proper time has elapsed in the (his) "moving" frame than in the (her)

> "rest" frame.

improper time. Sadly, people measuring for real instead for gedanken

don't share your opinion of what is proper and what is not.

Sep 28, 2021, 3:58:36 AMSep 28

to

On Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 07:40:33 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:

> ** The utter nonsense is all yours: of course he can, it's just two segments on a diagram, plus it can even be done, just use two "travelling twins" properly arranged. **

>

> You fucking agent of the enemy...

And who is the enemy, Julio? Just curious.
> ** The utter nonsense is all yours: of course he can, it's just two segments on a diagram, plus it can even be done, just use two "travelling twins" properly arranged. **

>

> You fucking agent of the enemy...

Sep 28, 2021, 4:33:32 AMSep 28

to

integrals. There is probably a missing delta function term hiding somewhere,

this sort of thing is quite common and can be tricky. At the end of the

day there is probably a hidden passing the limit under the integral sign

being performed when it is illegal to do so (the integrand not satisfying

the Lebesgue dominated convergence criteria or something similar).

In the pre-distribution theory days people dealt with it by carefully

setting up Stieltjes integrals to take care of discontinuities in

a mathematically legal way.

--

Jan

Sep 28, 2021, 10:51:08 AMSep 28

to

On 9/28/21 12:45 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

> That's all and simply *completely wrong*, the whole standard little

> tale of clocks slowing down...

You REALLY should learn something about the subject before attempting to
> That's all and simply *completely wrong*, the whole standard little

> tale of clocks slowing down...

write about it. The standard explanation of the twin paradox in SR does

not involve any "clocks slowing down". Rather, it involves different

timelike path lengths for the two twins.

Hint: clocks never "slow down", they always tick at

their usual rate. This is what SR and GR predict, and

what experiments confirm, regardless of some

popularizations claiming otherwise.

> Rather, one twin gets there BEFORE THE OTHER, and viceversa.

twins happens at a single event (point in spacetime). So they

necessarily arrive at the same time, using any coordinate system

whatsoever. Of course they arrive with different values of elapsed

proper time (and therefore different values displayed on their personal

clocks).

Tom Roberts

Sep 28, 2021, 12:28:23 PMSep 28

to

On Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 16:51:08 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

> On 9/28/21 12:45 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

> > That's all and simply *completely wrong*, the whole standard little

> > tale of clocks slowing down...

> You REALLY should learn something about the subject before attempting to

> write about it.

First, you should learn that you're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!
> On 9/28/21 12:45 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

> > That's all and simply *completely wrong*, the whole standard little

> > tale of clocks slowing down...

> You REALLY should learn something about the subject before attempting to

> write about it.

> Nonsense! -- that simply does not happen, because the reunion of the

> twins happens at a single event (point in spacetime). So they

> necessarily arrive at the same time, using any coordinate system

> whatsoever. Of course they arrive with different values of elapsed

> proper time (and therefore different values displayed on their personal

> clocks).

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep

indicating t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

Whatever FORCES poor idiot Tom - GPS engineers were
resistant to it.

Sep 28, 2021, 7:30:17 PMSep 28

to

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> On Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 16:51:08 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

>> On 9/28/21 12:45 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

>> > That's all and simply *completely wrong*, the whole standard little

>> > tale of clocks slowing down...

>> You REALLY should learn something about the subject before attempting to

>> write about it.

>

> First, you should learn that you're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!

The best way to describe Nature is obviously one that allows us to explain
> On Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 16:51:08 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

>> On 9/28/21 12:45 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

>> > That's all and simply *completely wrong*, the whole standard little

>> > tale of clocks slowing down...

>> You REALLY should learn something about the subject before attempting to

>> write about it.

>

> First, you should learn that you're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!

her past behavior and predict correctly her future behavior, to be able to

use that knowledge in various ways.

[For example, a rocket that does not correctly sufficiently gravity will

fall down instead of reaching outer space. And a rocket that is

designed based on the wrong model that the gravitational acceleration

would be constant with altitude will waste fuel and can carry less

payload that it otherwise would have been able to.]

Therefore, it is necessary to describe Nature how she presents herself to

us, putting aside all (your) fantasies of something simpler (just because

you are/one is lacking the skill or willpower to understand her

complexities).

>> Nonsense! -- that simply does not happen, because the reunion of the

>> twins happens at a single event (point in spacetime). So they

>> necessarily arrive at the same time, using any coordinate system

>> whatsoever. Of course they arrive with different values of elapsed

>> proper time (and therefore different values displayed on their personal

>> clocks).

>

> In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep

> indicating t'=t,

The Global Positioning System (GPS), like all satellite-based systems,

consists of a ground segment, a space segment, and a control segment. The

control segment includes atomic clocks (they are on the ground, e.g. at the

USNO¹), and so does the space segment (the clocks are aboard the GPS

satellites). [The ground segment are users of GPS: Organizations and

private individuals, and their GPS receivers.]

Put simply, the clocks aboard the satellites have been TUNED ACCORDING TO

GENERAL RELATIVITY so that they KEEP being in sync with the ground clocks.

(In actuality, not the satellite clocks, but the signal frequency has been

tuned to compensate for the MEASURED relativistic effects.)

_________

¹ <https://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/time/display-clocks/simpletime>

> just like all serious clocks always did.

explaining what that is even supposed to mean.

[It is only from your other statements that one is forced to conclude that

you think that GPS would work (especially its time service) even if the

satellite clocks had not be tuned in some way, and that that would be so

because you believe that the theories of relativity as a whole would be

wrong.]

> Whatever FORCES poor idiot Tom - GPS engineers were resistant to it.

The inventors of, and the engineers involved in, the development and

construction of GPS *specifically* included the possibility for the sending

frequency to be adjustable in the likely case that the aforementioned

correction would be necessary.

Then they TESTED whether there would be a measurable difference in elapsed

proper time on the satellites as compared to measurement by ground clocks

(which they could do because the satellites are SENDING the satellite time

IN THE SIGNAL). And lo and behold, the difference was ALMOST PRECISELY as

general relativity predicted.

As a result, the SENDING FREQUENCY was adjusted to COMPENSATE for the THUS

MEASURED general-relativistic effect.

It is all described very clearly IN THEIR OWN TECHNICAL REPORT (of 1977).

A digitized version has been PUBLICLY available for YEARS:

<https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA058591>

Quote (AGAIN) from page 11 of the report:

| […] Inclusion of the Panama frequency offset of +0.6 pp 10¹² produces an

| NTS measured value of +443.1 pp 10¹². Comparison of this value

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

| to the predicted value of the relativistic offset of +445.0 pp 10¹² gives

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

| a difference of −1.9 pp 10¹². On day 215, 1977, the NTS-2 PRO-S output

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^

| signal was offset (Fig. 16) through the use of a frequency synthesizer

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

| [4].

[“pp 10¹²” means “parts per trillion (short scale)”.

+445/10¹² · 86'400 s ≈ +38.448 μs/d. Compare

<http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html> p.]

And it is the same problem and solution for all other navigation satellite

systems (NSS); in particular the fully operational GNSSs (global …): GLONASS

(USSR/Russian Federation), BeiDou (People’s Republic of China), and Galileo

(European Union).

You simply have no clue what you are talking about, but you are too self-

absorbed, attention-seeking, or simply SENILE to (be able to) even consider

that possibility (let alone have yourself be educated by rebuttals or even

to educate yourself by doing some ACTUAL research on the matter). How sad.

[This is just yet another correction of your false claims. I will

not react to your foreseeable irrational response as those are facts

which are not debatable. (You are entitled to your own opinion, but

not to your own facts.) So you should save the bandwidth for future

generations as they will certainly need it.]

PointedEars

--

Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

Sep 29, 2021, 1:38:45 AMSep 29

to

On Wednesday, 29 September 2021 at 01:30:17 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Put simply, the clocks aboard the satellites have been TUNED ACCORDING TO

> GENERAL RELATIVITY

Will you show me, precisely, the point where your idiot guru
> Put simply, the clocks aboard the satellites have been TUNED ACCORDING TO

> GENERAL RELATIVITY

says JUST ANYTHING about tuning any clocks?

It takes just a little bit of common sense to understand, that

when clocks desynchronize we should tune them to keep

indicating t'=t. Just a litle bit of common sense is enough.

And that's why your idiot guru had to announce common

sense "a collection of prejudices". There is NO clock

tuniung in your Shit and you're enchanting the reality.

Sep 29, 2021, 6:53:17 AMSep 29

to

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>> First, you should learn that you're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!

>

> The best way to describe Nature is obviously one that allows us to explain

> her past behavior and predict correctly her future behavior, to be able to

> use that knowledge in various ways.

>

> [For example, a rocket that does not correctly sufficiently gravity

> will fall down instead of reaching outer space. […]]

This should have been:

„For example, a rocket that does not sufficiently consider gravity will fall

down instead of reaching outer space.“

PointedEars

--

Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?

A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

> Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>> First, you should learn that you're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!

>

> The best way to describe Nature is obviously one that allows us to explain

> her past behavior and predict correctly her future behavior, to be able to

> use that knowledge in various ways.

>

> [For example, a rocket that does not correctly sufficiently gravity

This should have been:

„For example, a rocket that does not sufficiently consider gravity will fall

down instead of reaching outer space.“

PointedEars

--

Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?

A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Sep 29, 2021, 7:11:15 AMSep 29

to

On Wednesday, 29 September 2021 at 12:53:17 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> >> First, you should learn that you're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!

> >

> > The best way to describe Nature is obviously one that allows us to explain

> > her past behavior and predict correctly her future behavior, to be able to

> > use that knowledge in various ways.

> >

> > [For example, a rocket that does not correctly sufficiently gravity

> > will fall down instead of reaching outer space. […]]

>

> This should have been:

>

> „For example, a rocket that does not sufficiently consider gravity will fall

> down instead of reaching outer space.“

For another example - GPS applying "proper clocks" matching
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> >> First, you should learn that you're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!

> >

> > The best way to describe Nature is obviously one that allows us to explain

> > her past behavior and predict correctly her future behavior, to be able to

> > use that knowledge in various ways.

> >

> > [For example, a rocket that does not correctly sufficiently gravity

> > will fall down instead of reaching outer space. […]]

>

> This should have been:

>

> „For example, a rocket that does not sufficiently consider gravity will fall

> down instead of reaching outer space.“

the ISO standard and elapsing "proper time" - all of that being

a part of Tom's BEST WAY - would never work

Sep 29, 2021, 7:45:03 AMSep 29

to

On Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 16:51:08 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

I'll leave it at that, discussing around here is a complete waste of time.

EOD.

Julio

Sep 29, 2021, 11:08:48 AMSep 29

to

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> [For example, a rocket that does not correctly sufficiently gravity

>> will fall down instead of reaching outer space. […]]

>

> This should have been:

>

> „For example, a rocket that does not sufficiently consider gravity will

> fall down instead of reaching outer space.“

you are insane.
>> [For example, a rocket that does not correctly sufficiently gravity

>> will fall down instead of reaching outer space. […]]

>

> This should have been:

>

> „For example, a rocket that does not sufficiently consider gravity will

> fall down instead of reaching outer space.“

Sep 29, 2021, 2:28:19 PMSep 29

to

On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 11:08:48 AM UTC-4, Ho Im wrote:

<spam snipped>

Spam reported.

I incite others to do the same.

<spam snipped>

Spam reported.

I incite others to do the same.

Sep 29, 2021, 2:42:59 PMSep 29

to

articles? You fucking idiot.

Complaints-To: groups...@google.com

Message-ID: <0a24d7ad-aa42-4311...@googlegroups.com>

Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity

posting-host=184.160.32.227;

posting-account=BHsbrQoAAAANJj6HqXJ987nOEDAC1EsJ

NNTP-Posting-Host: 184.160.32.227

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu