Den 10.04.2025 19:35, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
On 4/10/2025 3:39 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
To sum up:
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
>
Einstein could use the old definition.
Modern physicists can not.
>
>
Oh, can't they? What a pity :(((
Sane people, on the other hand - can't
use their ideological idiocy, anyone can
check GPS.
>
Do you really not understand that to measure time to
a precision 1e-15 you must use an atomic clock which
has the very precise definition built in?
And they for sure have a very precise definition built
in instead that ideological absurd your bunch of idiots
is trying to enforce.
Once again: if they applied your ISO - they wouldn't
indicate t'=t (i.e. wouldn't be synchronized). Do
you get it, or are you too stupid even for that?
ISO ? ROFL
I accept that you don't understand that to measure time
to a precision 1e-15 you must use an atomic clock which
has the very precise definition built in.
I also accept that you don't know that the institution
that has the definitions of units, including the second,
is The International System of Units (SI).
There is but one definition of second:
"The second is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of
the cesium frequency ∆νCs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine
transition frequency of the cesium-133 atom, to be 9,192,631,770
when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s^−1."
So whether you like it or not, this is the dentition used by all
who are measuring time in seconds.
>
Are you pretending to be that ignorant, or are you really
that ignorant?
>
>
But if you need a clock which you can bring anywhere and
still trust it runs at the correct rate, 1 second per second,
an atomic clock ticking out seconds as defined by SR is the obvious
choice.
>
No it is not, anyone can check GPS, serious
people performing real (not gedanken) measurements
didn't even consider your ideological idiocy.
>
I am not going to quarrel with you.
>
I am telling facts.
There are a lot of atomic clocks on ground and in space.
The TAI network which is the base of UTC the time zones.
>
These networks could not work with the old definition of second.
>
>
Sorry, that is not any fact, that's
a very impudent lie, expected of course from
a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they
surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if
they tried, they would soon loose the
synchronization - will you deny?
Of course, loosing it would be "proper" for
some religious maniacs, but it's still
something sane people are not going to allow.
>
I note with interest that you claim the TAI network
consisting of 450 atomic clocks doesn't exist. :-D
I note with no interest that you lie again,
as expected from a relativistic idiot; didn't
claim that or anything similar.
To my statement:
"There are a lot of atomic clocks on ground and in space.
The TAI network which is the base of UTC and the time zones.
These networks could not work with the old definition of second."
You responded:
"Sorry, that is not any fact, that's
a very impudent lie, expected of course from
a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they
surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if
they tried, they would soon loose the
synchronization - will you deny?"
(I suppose ISo should be SI)
So you claim that the TAI network doesn't exist because
the atomic clocks surely can't work with your ISo idiocy;
if they tried, they would soon loose the synchronization
An incredible idiotic claim! :-D
I am not going to quarrel about that, but maybe you should
look up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time
>
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day.
>
If an observer is moving at c/2 towards the Sun,
then Einstein and Newton would agree that the observer
in his telescope would see the angular frequency
of the Earth Doppler shifted by ~ ω ≈ 1.73⋅ω₀
>
And is it THE RESULT OF MEASUREMENT according
to you?
>
Yes of course.
The observer will _see_ the Earth spinning fast,
>
Will he also _see_ a clock of a person on
Earth running fast? Is THAT what your
beloved Shit is claiming?
>
Yes! Did you really not understand that?
>
Another lie, it claims exactly the opposite,
according to it in such circumstances the
clock will be seen as running slower.
Did you really not understand that?
>
You are making a fool of yourself again.
This is Doppler shift.
This is Doppler shift indeed and The Shit
is claiming that in such circumstances the
clock will be seen as running slower, not
as running faster.
A hint:
an observer is moving at c/2 towards the Sun.
I find it amazing that a person who is posting
in a physics can be so ignorant of Doppler shift!
>
>
>
The observer moving at c/2 relative to the Sun can obviously not
measure
the proper length of a mean solar day.
>
Some taboo or what?
>
I said obviously!
If it isn't obvious to you you can't be very smart.
>
>
>
The mean solar day will be measured to be 86400 seconds only
by a stationary clock on the geoid.
>
Measured by a clock in GPS orbit a mean solar day would be
86400.00003875 seconds.
Experimental verified fact.\
>
Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs.
A measurement is - comparing measured [something]
to the unit. When the unit changes, the measurement
changes too.
>
You are babbling nonsense.
>
I will tell you some facts:
It is 120 years since Einstein introduced SR, and 110 years since
he introduced GR.
During more than a century innumerable experiment testing SR and GR
are made, and every one of them have confirmed SR/GR.
SR and GR are never falsified.
Many hundreds of physicists have been involved in these tests.
Here is some of the experiments:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
All professional physicists know that SR and GR are so well
confirmed that is no question of their validity.
And then an idiot who doesn't even know what Doppler shift is
claims that all the physicist of the last century are frauds
who only tell lies about what is measured.
This idiot must be extremely gullible since he buy
the mindless propaganda of the "relativity-deniers".
True, it's 120 years since the idiot mumbled that
comparing a mean solar day to 1/86400 of itself
must give 86400.000038575 or 90000 or 95000
So the real idiot thinks that Einstein in 1915
mumbled about what the duration of a mean solar
day would be when measured by a GPS satellite? :-D
But of course, GR is the theory that make it possible
to predict what the the duration would be.
But to do the actual measurement, it was necessary
to make a more precise definition of a second,
and invent atomic clocks.
Now, when all that is done, the duration of a mean solar day
measured by a clock in GPS orbit is 86400.000038575 s
as predicted by GR.
-
During more than a century innumerable experiment testing SR and GR
are made, and every one of them have confirmed SR/GR.
When you talk to a deeply believing christian -
everything is confirming the existence of God
for him.
Sure. But why do you think it is relevant?
The Shit's worshippers are just similar.
Does this cryptic statement mean that there are
experiment which have falsified SR/GR?
Can you name one?
SR and GR are never falsified.
Many hundreds of physicists have been involved in these tests.
Here is some of the experiments:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
Too bad they were not even consistent.
In that case I am sure you can name which experiment is inconsistent,
and can explain exactly why.
Can you do that? :-D
And then it is easy to understand that a mean solar day would
be measured to last 86400((1 + 4.4647e-10)s = 86400.000038575 s.
Sure, after some brainwashing it's easy to
understand that x compared to 1/86400 of
itself must give 86400.000038575
:-D
BTW, are you sure it is not 86400((1 - 4.4647e-10)s?
Yes. It is 86400(1 + 4.4647e-10)s
I said "clock in GPS orbit", not GPS clock.
See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdfI took the number from you without much thinking
yesterday, but it's mistaken too.
GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.
The fact that this adjustment is necessary prove
the fact that a clock built after the SI defintion
will be fast by (1 + 4.4647e-10) compared to UTC.
But you don't understand this, and never will.
>
Physics is all about experimental evidence.
Only such a primitive moron can believe such a naive
bullshit, sorry.
>
So when someone say:
"Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs."
>
Then that someone has made a giant fool of himself
and revealed that he is an idiot.
Oppositely, that happens when someone is saying
"Physics is all about experimental evidence.
Its kind of comforting that you are too stupid to understand
how giant fool you have made by yourself.
>
Measurement, poor trash, is comparing measured
[something] to the unit. In the physics of your
idiot guru - measuring mean solar day was -
comparing it to its 1/86400.
>
Quite.
And the result is:
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
>
Paul, why didn't you read what you wrote yourself
just some paragraphs above?
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition - a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps
at Earth, but ~86400.00003875 at a GPS satellite.
And ~99766s in a rocket crossing Solar System
with c/2 (hasn't really been measured, of course,
but let's say I believe what your insane Shit is
saying about that).
>
>
I note with interest that even Doppler shift is "insane shit"..
Feel free to believe that, I have a different opinion.
OK. You have changed your mind. Doppler isn't "insane shit".
>
It seems like you are too stupid to understand how great
fool you are making of yourself.
>
>
>
Do you find it problematic that the new definition
is more precise than the old one?
>
No, but I find problematic that a bunch of religious
maniacs is lying it is more precise - ignoring
the facts anyone can check at GPS.
>
I note with interest that you don't know that
an atomic clock is more precise than a clock
calibrated to the old definition.
An atomic clock calibrated to the old definition
is quite precise, indeed. Atomic clocks calibrated
to your ISO idiocy is lacking precision and pretty
useless, though, and that's why (anyone can check
that) GPS clocks are calibrated not to ISO, but to
9192631770 on Earth and ~9192631774 at a satellite.
What matches the old definition and doesn't match ISO.
Thank you for confirming that you don't know that
it would be impossible to make an atomic clock
run to a precision 1e-15 without the new definition
of the second.
BTW, why do you think the ISO standard is relevant to
the definition of a second?
"Atomic clocks calibrated to your ISO idiocy is lacking
precision and pretty useless."
You are very confused, are you not?
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/ISO-date-format.
The institution that defines unit standard is:
And the SR shit of your idiot guru was claiming
the result will be...
>
What?
>
~86400.00003875 on a GPS satellite.
~99766 in a gedanken rocket crossing Solar System
with c/2.
That's - repeat - THE RESULT OF COMPARING A
MEAN SOLAR DAY TO 1/86400 OF ITSELF - according
to your insane guru.
>
So the only way a time can be measured is to compare it to
a mean solar day? :-D
Even more generally - the only way anything can be
measured is to compare it with a declared earlier
reference unit. For the physics of your idiot guru
and a time measurement it was 1/86400 of a mean solar
day. I'm sorry, trash.
So now you don't even try to make sense.
Tell me, Paul - did your idiot guru write in his
idiotic paper all the claims derivable and valid
in his idiotic theory?
Yes or no?
>
Does that mean that you haven't read Einstein's papers?
How do you know it is an idiot theory if you don't know
what the theory is?
I have read them, though. And I can tell you that
everything I have told you is derivable from Einstein's theory.
If you think there are inconsistencies in Einstein's paper
I suggest you read the papers an point out exactly what
is inconsistent.
Start with this:
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
and continue with this:
https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf>
Make my day, say that you don't have to read Einstein's shit
to know that his theory is idiotic.
No, it doesn't, you fabricate and slander
as usual. So, yes or no?
Not quite the answer I asked for, but close.
Interesting to know that Einstein's papers are
my fabrications. Should I be proud?
I think we end it here.
I have noted during years that you never ever have made
a sensible statement in your posts. Just meaningless nonsense.
That's why I previously have ignored you and never responded to you.
But I thought it would be interesting to see if you could defend
your idiotic claims. You couldn't.
So back to normal.
From now I will ignore you again.
It has been fun, though.
Thanks for the entertainment. :-D
-- Paulhttps://paulba.no/
Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics
Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics
