Tom Capizzi wrote:
> [snip nonsense]

Still no math, just gobbledygook.

> Do I have a sign on me that says "Sucker"?

You do.

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 7:39:39 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> Do I have a sign on me that says "Sucker"?

Yep. "Crank" as well.

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 10:56:04 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> Einstein postulated the invariance of c.

Only in terms of the special class of coordinate systems in which the equations of physics hold good in homogeneous and isotropic form.

> He also asserted that time dilation and length contraction were physical.

Sure, he asserted that, for example, the train cars would break apart when set in motion, and that relatively moving ideal clocks each run slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other is at rest, and so on. Just as importantly, special relativity asserts the relativity of simultaneity, i.e., the loci of constant t are skewed relative to the loci of constant t' for any two systems of inertial coordinates.

> But in Euclidean eigenvector geometry (most definitely NOT Minkowski geometry)...

You are mixing up coordinate systems with geometries, and you are fantasizing a non-existent 3+1-dimensional coordinate systems that you think can be constructed on the basis of the eigenvectors of a particular Lorentz transformation (which is senseless), and you are contradicting yourself by denying that the Minkowski pseudo-metric characterizes the spatio-temporal relations after you have accepted Lorentz invariance (each implies the other).

> These coordinates are determined by light rays and are unaffected by relative
> velocity of either the source or the observer.

That is not true in 3+1 dimensional spacetime, because of aberration. (Aberration doesn't affect things in 1+1 dimensional spacetime, which is why you can ignore it in that context.)

> Read Bondi's k-calculus.

That was just a bit of neologism that Bondi confected for his obtuse little popularization, and predictably some readers are misled into thinking it has some profound significance or novelty, when it is nothing but the self-evident Doppler factors, best suited for 1+1 dimensional exercises in introductory books.

> > Could you cite an example of an actual text book (not a popularization) that talks about
> > "shrinking time and space" in special relativity?
>
> No.

> > Can you clarify what you mean by "the measurement hiding"?
>
> No.

Well, that is the problem with your beliefs ... you cannot explain what you mean.

> You use definitions that Einstein did not. Phony distinctions to create red herrings.

What definitions am I using that Einstein did not? And what "phony distinctions" am I making?

> ... it now bores me.

Yes, it normally takes only about ten messages, carefully and clearly explaining special relativity, before individuals such as yourself declare themselves "bored" and run away.

In summary, your fundamental problem is that you have abandoned common sense, and immersed yourself in a solipsistic world of self-contradictory fantasy, without a shred of common sense, sound judgment, logic, the natural intuitive basis for all human reason. It isn't entirely your fault... you've been misled by popularizations written by people who don't understand special relativity any better than you do, into thinking that special relativity is weird and wacky and violates common sense, and you've taken this (erroneous) view as license to throw common sense and natural intuition out the window and fabricate complete nonsense. I suggest you try to get back in touch with your common sense and intuition, and stop indulging yourself with wildly self-contradictory and illogical beliefs.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 12:29:06 AM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 9:01:32 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> The problem with your answer is that we know, for an objectively verifiable fact,
>>>> that inertia-based coordinate systems (3 real space coordinates and 1 real time
>>>> coordinate), as operationally established by clear physical processes, are related
>>>> by Lorentz transformations. This is a consequence of the inertia of energy, and it
>>>> fully accounts for all the relativistic phenomena. You have agreed with this, right?
>>>> So hypothesizing any additional effects would destroy the agreement with the
>>>> observed phenomena. Right?
>>>
>>> Time ... is one of the original 4 [dimensions], and we already know that it shrinks
>>> by the same factor as space.
>> Neither time nor space "shrink" according to special relativity. Talking
>> about space and time shrinking is the kind of thing you find in bad
>> popularizations of relativity, not in actual texts. The correct
>> statement is that, due to the inertia of energy, inertial coordinate
>> systems are related by Lorentz transformations, and this entails all the
>> relativistic effects, but it does not signify that either space or time "shrink".
>>> Both time and space have extra magnitude to get rid of, so it can't be going from either
>>> one to the other.
>> As noted above, all the relativistic effects are accounted for by the
>> dynamical fact that inertia-based coordinate systems are related by Lorentz
>> transformations, which entails (among things) that the loci of
>> simultaneity for relatively moving systems of coordinates are skewed
>> ("rotated") relative to each other. In other words, the set of events
>> coinciding with a given object at a given time t in terms of S is skewed
>> in time relative to the set of events coinciding with that object at a
>> given time t' in terms of S'. Of course, it isn't a Euclidean rotation,
>> it is a hyperbolic rotation. This is elementary relativity, and it is
>> objectively verifiable. You've actually agreed with all this, so nothing
>> is accomplished by introducing some unobservable elements that have no
>> effect on the phenomena... even by your own account. Agreed?
>
> I will not agree with anything you regurgitate. Just because you make a
> sequence of statements that I choose to ignore is not an indication I
> agree with you. And the "Talking about space and time shrinking is the
> kind of thing you find in bad popularizations of relativity, not in
> actual texts. " that I do comes from Einstein's books, not some
> popularized version of relativity. Your argument amounts to "It is what
> it is because that's what it is." A bunch of circular logic, mumbo-jumbo.
> I think you're the one who needs to learn the difference between
> correlation and causation. The Lorentz Transformation applies to any
> hyperbola. It does not cause relativistic effects. It is a hyperbolic
> rotation. It applies in hyperbolic trigonometry. It predicts relativistic
> effects. The dilation of time is demonstrated by stationary clocks and
> the contraction of length is the result of simultaneous measurements.
> That's in Einstein's book.

Einstein’s book, in case you did not notice this, IS a popularization. It
was written SPECIFICALLY to make relativity accessible, though not in a
rigorously correct way, to the interested public.

> I'm sure there are circumstances where events are neither simultaneous
> nor coincident. The demonstrations of dilation and contraction are not
> any of those cases. So, wise-ass, in cases where the measurement is
> actually simultaneous AND the measurement is found to be contracted,
> where is the rest of the measurement hiding? Neither Einstein, Lorentz or
> Minkowski have anything to say about that. Because it isn't in their 4
> dimensions. That doesn't make the Lorentz Transformation wrong, just
> incomplete. It only relates cosine projections.
>

All you seem to have done is suppose that properties like “true length” are
invariant but unmeasurable, a projection of the invariant going into some
unseen and unverifiable dimension. You seem to think this length invariance
is valuable for some reason, but can’t elucidate what that reason is. You
have no problem with other variables like kinetic energy being frame
dependent, but insist that length cannot be one of them, and so have
devised a way for some of it to disappear into extra dimensions.

This does not seem to be more “right” in any defensible way.

Moreover, I’ll remind you that relativity has produced many more
predictions than your idea has, including, for example, the existence of
positrons, the origin of metallicity and semiconductivity, the mapping of
accelerator collision secondaries between collider and fixed-target
accelerators. You wave your hands and say no one has proven to your your
idea CAN’T make the same predictions, but as it is, your idea has a much
smaller demonstrated scope of success than relativity. On that score,
relativity wins. This is essentially no different than the comparison
between Lorentz ether theory and relativity; in the limited domain where
LET has definitive answers, LET and special relativity agree, but
relativity has a much larger domain of definitive answers.

And finally, here’s something to chew on. You say length contraction by the
Lorentz factor gamma is an artifact of rotation of invariant length into
that unseen dimension. Likewise, you say that measure velocity gets shrunk
by a factor gamma, compared to the proper velocity, because of the same
rotation into the unseen dimension. From these two, you’d expect that
measured acceleration would be reduced from F/m by that same factor gamma
because of the rotation into the unseen dimension, a definite prediction of
your idea. This turns out to be experimentally wrong. And if you’re going
to say that’s not your prediction for the behavior of the acceleration as
seen in a moving frame, then WHAT IS your prediction?

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

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 2:55:51 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2021-11-02 22:02:49 +0000, Tom Capizzi said:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 5:14:54 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>>>> Tom Capizzi wrote:> ...
>>>>> Agreeing with common sense is just gravy. You apparently have> > no
>>>>> conception of what an isomorphism is. With respect to the> > logarithm,
>>>>> addition and multiplication are isomorphisms.
>>>> Nope. You are the one who do not know what a isomorphism is. Your>
>>>> sentence makes absolutely NO SENSE.>> The correct statement is:
>>>> Logarithm IS an isomorphism between> the groups (R+*, *) (strictly
>>>> positive real numbers, multiplication)> and (R, +)>> You are even more
>>>> ignorant of basic algebra than you are of physics.
>>>
>>> Big deal. You like talking in big words. A morphism is a mapping. An
>>> isomorphism is a bidirectional mapping that preserves binary
>>> relationships between the elements. So, I was careless in an
>>> illustrative example.
>> You were the one who introduced the big word, "isomorphism".
>>
>> Carelessness is not acceptable in mathematics, even if we accept you
>> were just being careless and not stupid and ignorant.
>>> Proves nothing, except that you are only interested in being contrary.
>>> I don't pay strict attention to details when I deal with trolls. What's
>>> the point? They never agree, even when plainly wrong.
>> --
>> Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.
>
> Well, this is a physics thread. And I've been told over and over by
> physics "experts" that physics is not about truth. That's philosophy. If
> the numbers work, that's good enough. So, I admit that sometimes I get
> careless when addressing that group. I do get tired of these
> self-proclaimed experts blathering about falsifiability.

That is a central principle in science. You don’t like it?

> While two isomorphisms cannot be distinguished by experiment,

Only a wee bit better. You still don’t know what the words mean and you’re
trying to bluff and bluster.

> they still persist in demanding one. They do not appear to understand
> that what makes isomorphisms different has no effect on the outcome of any experiment.
>

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

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 8:58:06 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi wrote:
>>> ... two isomorphisms cannot be distinguished by experiment
>>
>>
>> You're doing it again: using the word "isomorphism" in a way
>> that makes NO SENSE AT ALL.
>
> Big deal. So, two isomorphic structures cannot be distinguished by experiment.

Nope. Want to keep flailing?

> Is that better? God knows I wouldn't want to make a small grammar mistake
> talking to trolls. And you know damn well what I mean. Quit playing
> stupid. If you want to correct me, just offer your alternative.

Why would anyone try to correct jabberwocky?

> You seem to enjoy being contrary.
>

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

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 15:39:39 UTC+1, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 10:22:07 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> > Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 9:27:32 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> > >> Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 8:58:06 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> > >>>> Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > >>>>> ... two isomorphisms cannot be distinguished by experiment
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You're doing it again: using the word "isomorphism" in a way
> > >>>> that makes NO SENSE AT ALL.
> > >>>
> > >>> Big deal. So, two isomorphic structures cannot be distinguished by experiment. Is that better?
> > >> It is. Now can you explain what are these two structures you are talking
> > >> about?
> > >
> > > As if you haven't read any of the previous posts. One structure is Minkowski geometry, and the other is Euclidean eigenvector geometry. Things that are true for Euclidean geometry are not true for Minkowski geometry and vice versa. But since Einstein published relativity (On the Electrodynamics ...) about 3 years before Minkowski invented his variant, Euclidean geometry is the standard by which to judge special relativity. And it fails to measure up.
> > I see no math there. You just pretend.
> What? You expect me to write a book in a post? For idiots who won't read it anyway, and if they do, they will change it to suit their own argument? Do I have a sign on me that says "Sucker"? For the feeble-minded: Einstein postulated the invariance of c. He also asserted that time dilation and length contraction were physical. But in Euclidean eigenvector geometry (most definitely NOT Minkowski geometry), time and distance are invariant in the eigenvector "rest" frame (the one associated with the chosen reference origin). These coordinates are determined by light rays and are unaffected by relative velocity of either the source or the observer. (Read Bondi's k-calculus) Using the Einstein postulate of the invariance of lightspeed, a grid of events is defined that are not affected by relative velocity. Distances and times are invariant. The measurements that claim otherwise are defective. These "shrinking" properties are illusions. That's all the math you get. You want more, read Bondi's book. I'm sure you'll have some wisecracks about him, too.

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On 11/2/2021 11:41 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 20:41:21 -0500, Clutterfreak
> <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/2/2021 12:47 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> You know what "Trust Me." means?, it means fuck you.
>>
>>
>> What does fuck you mean, trust me?
>
> Trust me, that's what it means.
>
>
> When President says, "Trust Me.", it means FUCK YOU!
>
>
> Anybody who tells you "Trust Me,", is thinking...Fuck You!
>
>
> Trust me, I know what I'm talking about...
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.
>

What if Jesus tells you "Trust me"?

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 11/3/2021 1:17 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 12:56:30 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> So Janitor, why do the GPS specs *explicitly* state the satellite
>> transmitter carrier is at 10.22999999543 MHz, not 10.23 MHz? And why do
>> the specs explicitly mention GR as the reason for that?
>
> No, Moroney (fake EE). It doesn't say that, imbecile. The transmitter carrier L1c is codified at 154 x 10.23 Mhz = 1575.42 Mhz.
>

"2.3.1.1 Frequency Plan

The L-band SPS ranging signal is contained within a 2.046 MHz
band centered about L1. The carrier frequency for the L1
signal is coherently derived from a frequency source within the
satellite. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an
observer on the ground -- is 1.023 MHz. To compensate for relativistic
effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard --
as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite
-- is 10.23 MHz offset by a ∆f/f = -4.4647 x 10^-18 or a ∆f
= -4.567 x 10^-3 Hz. This frequency offset results in an
output of 10.22999999543 MHz, which is frequency divided to
obtain the appropriate carrier modulation signal (1.022999999543
MHz). The same output frequency source is also used to generate the
nominal L1 carrier frequency (fo) of 1575.42 MHz."

https://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/1995-SPS-signal-specification.pdf

NEXT!!!

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 17:16:33 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/3/2021 1:17 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 12:56:30 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> >> So Janitor, why do the GPS specs *explicitly* state the satellite
> >> transmitter carrier is at 10.22999999543 MHz, not 10.23 MHz? And why do
> >> the specs explicitly mention GR as the reason for that?
> >
> > No, Moroney (fake EE). It doesn't say that, imbecile. The transmitter carrier L1c is codified at 154 x 10.23 Mhz = 1575.42 Mhz.
> >
>
> "2.3.1.1 Frequency Plan
>
> The L-band SPS ranging signal is contained within a 2.046 MHz
> band centered about L1. The carrier frequency for the L1
> signal is coherently derived from a frequency source within the
> satellite. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an
> observer on the ground -- is 1.023 MHz. To compensate for relativistic
> effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard --
> as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite
> -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a ∆f/f = -4.4647 x 10^-18 or a ∆f
> = -4.567 x 10^-3 Hz. This frequency offset results in an
> output of 10.22999999543 MHz, which is frequency divided to
> obtain the appropriate carrier modulation signal (1.022999999543
> MHz). The same output frequency source is also used to generate the
> nominal L1 carrier frequency (fo) of 1575.42 MHz."
>
> https://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/1995-SPS-signal-specification.pdf

Well well, stupid Mike. I must say I was mistaken that they didn't
write "it's 1.022999999543". Still, it means nothing except an
obvious mistake of theirs, as the measurement says otherwise.
What do you believe, stupid Mike, baseless mistaken assertions
or measurements?
Well, why am I asking; of course you believe the assertions of
The Shit no matter whether they're matching the measurements
or not.

On 11/3/2021 2:12 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 04:56:30 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/2/2021 11:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 15:42:58 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2021 1:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 22:50:17 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/1/2021 12:41 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 14:50:26 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A theory proves nothing. One is not forced to ACCEPT a theory based
>>>>>>>> on its own arguments. Certainly no scientist would do that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world anyone can observe GPS
>>>>>>> clocks measuring t'=t, just like all serial clocks always did.
>>>>
>>>>>> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain. No matter how often you
>>>>>> autisticly repeat it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, poor trash: between 2021-11-02 00:00 and 2021-11-03 00:00
>>>>> both a ground GPS clock and a satellite GPS clocks will count
>>>>> 24*60*60 seconds.
>>>> The overall GPS SYSTEM time agrees with a ground clock, yes, however the
>>>> point is that the frequency transmitted by a satellite is 10.22999999543
>>>
>>> No, stupid Mike, it is not. Measured with the GPS satellite clock
>>> (the one set to the serious second instead your ISO idiocy)
>>> it is 10.23 as well.
>>
>> So Janitor, why do the GPS specs *explicitly* state the satellite
>> transmitter carrier is at 10.22999999543 MHz
>
> It doesn't. You can't read, stupid Mike. It only says that it "would appear"
> as 10.22999999543 to an imagined someone.

And the importance of that is,...exactly what?

It is set to that frequency before launch, where it WAS measured, and it
isn't changed by launching it.

Are you actually trying to claim the GPS would work differently if each
satellite had an astronaut riding it (a la Dr. Strangelove) measuring it?

> Besides, even if
> they wrote it

They did write it. See my response to Dick Hertz.

> really - the measurement result is 10.23,

Nope. Explicitly stated as being 10.22999999543 MHz.

> and what
> is a value of an assertion against a measurement result, stupid
> Mike?

GPS specs aren't assertions. They are what the system is designed to.
You've obviously been partaking of the vodka particularly heavily today.
And so early -- when did you drunkenly post that, 7:12 AM your time?
6:12 AM??

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

<snip>

> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

But mostly to babble the brain damaged inane.

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 17:29:41 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/3/2021 2:12 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 04:56:30 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 11/2/2021 11:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 15:42:58 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 11/2/2021 1:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 22:50:17 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/1/2021 12:41 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 14:50:26 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A theory proves nothing. One is not forced to ACCEPT a theory based
> >>>>>>>> on its own arguments. Certainly no scientist would do that.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world anyone can observe GPS
> >>>>>>> clocks measuring t'=t, just like all serial clocks always did.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain. No matter how often you
> >>>>>> autisticly repeat it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry, poor trash: between 2021-11-02 00:00 and 2021-11-03 00:00
> >>>>> both a ground GPS clock and a satellite GPS clocks will count
> >>>>> 24*60*60 seconds.
> >>>> The overall GPS SYSTEM time agrees with a ground clock, yes, however the
> >>>> point is that the frequency transmitted by a satellite is 10.22999999543
> >>>
> >>> No, stupid Mike, it is not. Measured with the GPS satellite clock
> >>> (the one set to the serious second instead your ISO idiocy)
> >>> it is 10.23 as well.
> >>
> >> So Janitor, why do the GPS specs *explicitly* state the satellite
> >> transmitter carrier is at 10.22999999543 MHz
> >
> > It doesn't. You can't read, stupid Mike. It only says that it "would appear"
> > as 10.22999999543 to an imagined someone.
>
> And the importance of that is,...exactly what?
>
> It is set to that frequency before launch, where it WAS measured, and it
> isn't changed by launching it.

Of course it is changed by launching. Anyone can use the
clocks to measure.

> > Besides, even if
> > they wrote it
>
> They did write it. See my response to Dick Hertz.

Right, they did. Means nothing except their obvious
mistake, as the measurement result is 10.23.

> Nope. Explicitly stated as being 10.22999999543 MHz.

The measurement - direct comparing to the clock of the
satellite (the one set to the serious second instead your
ISO idiocy) gives 10.23. Sorry, stupid Mike.
Sure, if they obeyed your idiot gurus the results would be
matching your religion. But - common sense has won. It
always wins, stupid MIke.

> GPS specs aren't assertions.

Sure they are.

On 11/3/2021 12:19 PM, Jim Pennino wrote:
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
>> the unchallengeable.
>
> But mostly to babble the brain damaged inane.
>
Or babble the unbabbleable, perhaps meaning to babble what not even the
insane will babble.

Clutterfreak wrote:
>
> On 11/2/2021 11:41 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 20:41:21 -0500, Clutterfreak
> > <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/2/2021 12:47 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> You know what "Trust Me." means?, it means fuck you.
> >>
> >>
> >> What does fuck you mean, trust me?
> >
> > Trust me, that's what it means.
> >
> >
> > When President says, "Trust Me.", it means FUCK YOU!
> >
> >
> > Anybody who tells you "Trust Me,", is thinking...Fuck You!
> >
> >
> > Trust me, I know what I'm talking about...
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
> >
>
> What if Jesus tells you "Trust me"?

Then he is probably trying to sell me diamonds...

If God tells me "Trust Me.", do you think I'll fucking trust Him???

I'll fucken tell Him to go to Hell!

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 11/3/2021 1:43 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Clutterfreak wrote:
>>
>> On 11/2/2021 11:41 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 20:41:21 -0500, Clutterfreak
>>> <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/2/2021 12:47 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> You know what "Trust Me." means?, it means fuck you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What does fuck you mean, trust me?
>>>
>>> Trust me, that's what it means.
>>>
>>>
>>> When President says, "Trust Me.", it means FUCK YOU!
>>>
>>>
>>> Anybody who tells you "Trust Me,", is thinking...Fuck You!
>>>
>>>
>>> Trust me, I know what I'm talking about...
>>> --
>>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
>>> the unchallengeable.
>>>
>>
>> What if Jesus tells you "Trust me"?
>
>
> Then he is probably trying to sell me diamonds...
>
>
> If God tells me "Trust Me.", do you think I'll fucking trust Him???
>
>
> I'll fucken tell Him to go to Hell!
>
>
>
>
>
>

That's how a good physicist is! :-)

I can't think of a field of endeavor in which trusting is more of an
enemy than in physics. Chemists trust physicists. Biologists trust
physicists and chemists. "Engineers" trust physicists. But in physics
itself physicists trust nobody! No authority, no supervisor, no referee,
no publication, no friend and no foe.

Uncle Al hyped up so much about his chirality work, at the most crucial
stage of its development trusted someone else across USA to check its
validity for him! Only a non-physicist would do that. In physics, if you
do that, you are a signature moron.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 12:24:27 -0700 (PDT), Tom Capizzi
<tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 1:48:02 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>> >
>> > Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>> > > I don't know who your idiot guru is, but the point is that Einstein's GR
>> > > has won, since the GPS system works as designed.
>> >
>> > Animals have been using GPS since the beginning of time...what took you
>> > guys sooo long?
>> probably yous tooo busy trying to destroy the earth....
>>
>> reset the earth.
>>
>> Yous need something bigger than a china virus...a virus that kills everybody faster.
>>
>> How about start with a virus that kills only Jewish people? Then NOBODY would try to find a cure...
>>
>> just like the old days...maybe get IBM to help.
>>
>> What's next? Niggers! Nobody will bother to find a cure...never gets FDA approval.
>>
>> What's next? A real honest to goodness Chink Virus!
>>
>> What's next?
>>
>>
>> Of course, anyone who tries to find a cure will be ...assassinated.
>> (like Israel assassinates Iranian nucleur scientists) (which you people look the other way...)
>>
>>
>> Why ruin a good thing?
>>
>>
>> What's next, who's next? Who is a problem??
>>
>> Fuck'em, kill them all...
>>
>> but leave me at least one girl.
>>
>> I don't trust you guys...
>>
>> I'm going to have to go on another planet and
>> wait to yous kill
>> all yous others off...
>>
>> Everybody is waiting for the next...Einstein.
>>
>>
>> Here are some ideas Einstein had about how to get rid of all yous people...
>>
>> "Certainly the possibility can be envisaged of building a bomb of far greater size, capable of producing destruction over a larger area. " -Albert Einstein
>>
>> "It also is credible that an extensive use could be made of radioactivated gases which would spread over a wide region, causing heavy loss of life without damage to buildings." Albert Einstein
>>
>> "...believe it is necessary to go on beyond these possibilities to contemplate a vast extension of bacteriological warfare." Albert Einstein
>>
>> "....starting a chain reaction of a scope great enough to destroy part or all of this planet." - Albert Einstein
>>
>> "...imagine the earth being destroyed like a nova by a stellar explosion" -Albert Einstein
>>
>> Trust the science.
>>
>> You know what "Trust Me." means?, it means fuck you.
>> --
>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
>> the unchallengeable.
>
>In my darker moods, I wonder if Einstein realized the truth about hypercomplex geometry, and intentionally supported nuclear weapons as a way to discourage any thought of hypertechnology weapons. This technology makes nuclear weapons seem like 4th of July sparklers, even H-bombs. Think of it this way. Scientists have estimated that it would take the entire output of the US energy grid for a year to power a modest size ship to a nearby star system and back. Now imagine if all that power were released in one place at the same time. That's what will happen if we allow the rogues who profit off war to get their hands on this technology before there are any regulations. This technology could actually reverse all the climate damage that greed has caused. Or, it could destroy us all. If we do nothing, greed will destroy us all, anyway. We are at a crossroads here, much like Earth in the Gary7 episode of the original Star Trek. As you may recall, the Enterprise was on a mission to figure
out
>how the planet survived a destructive arms race to become a member of the Federation. Loss of historical records or something. Anyway, his plan was to create a crisis that could lead to total annihilation and miraculously save the day at the last possible second. The idea was that coming so close to disaster would bring all the governments together to a peaceful future. Unless we cooperate with this technology, we will not reach that future.

Albert Einstein lifted his finger and wrote: "According to the
suggestion you expressed in your letter I am giving you here reasons
for my opinion concerning the best localization for initiation of the
Torpedo explosion..."- Albert Einstein

https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1455974257809260546

Page 1
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FDSoXXFUUAApz8f?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
Page 2
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FDSojvRVQAAjcLq?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 11/3/2021 12:28 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 17:16:33 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/3/2021 1:17 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 12:56:30 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> So Janitor, why do the GPS specs *explicitly* state the satellite
>>>> transmitter carrier is at 10.22999999543 MHz, not 10.23 MHz? And why do
>>>> the specs explicitly mention GR as the reason for that?
>>>
>>> No, Moroney (fake EE). It doesn't say that, imbecile. The transmitter carrier L1c is codified at 154 x 10.23 Mhz = 1575.42 Mhz.
>>>
>>
>> "2.3.1.1 Frequency Plan
>>
>> The L-band SPS ranging signal is contained within a 2.046 MHz
>> band centered about L1. The carrier frequency for the L1
>> signal is coherently derived from a frequency source within the
>> satellite. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an
>> observer on the ground -- is 1.023 MHz. To compensate for relativistic
>> effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard --
>> as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite
>> -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a ∆f/f = -4.4647 x 10^-18 or a ∆f
>> = -4.567 x 10^-3 Hz. This frequency offset results in an
>> output of 10.22999999543 MHz, which is frequency divided to
>> obtain the appropriate carrier modulation signal (1.022999999543
>> MHz). The same output frequency source is also used to generate the
>> nominal L1 carrier frequency (fo) of 1575.42 MHz."
>>
>> https://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/1995-SPS-signal-specification.pdf
>
> Well well, stupid Mike. I must say I was mistaken that they didn't
> write "it's 1.022999999543".

Of course you were mistaken. You're always mistaken on every post you
make here.

> Still, it means nothing except an
> obvious mistake of theirs,

Nope. The mistake is yours, as expected.

> as the measurement says otherwise.

Did you forget about the first prototype GPS satellite? They tried it
with and without the GR correction, and once again, Einstein was correct.

> What do you believe, stupid Mike, baseless mistaken assertions
> or measurements?

I believe in measurements, of course. Such as the measurements from the
first prototype GPS satellite. They tried it first with no GR
correction, measured things and found it was unacceptably wrong. Then
they tried it with the GR correction enabled, measured things and found
it worked correctly! And I would never trust the assertions of some
drunk janitor on the matter.

On November 2, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> You apparently have no conception of what an isomorphism is.
> With respect to the logarithm, addition and multiplication are isomorphisms.

Incorrect.
The derivative of addition with respect to the logarithm
is an isomorphism.
But the derivative of multiplication with respect to the
logarithm is a homomorphism.

> Length contraction is an illusion, one that we can measure, but an illusion, nonetheless.

How do you tell the difference between a reality measurement
and an illusion measurement?

--
Rich

On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 00:12:03 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Did you forget about the first prototype GPS satellite? They tried it
> with and without the GR correction,

Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction, and no
surprise since after the correction measurement results doesn't
fit it. Your moronic religion does require Cs clocks to be set
to 9 192 631 770 - always, everywhere.

> and once again, Einstein was correct.

Instead, they find that the clocks "confirming" his idiocies
are incorrect, and corrected them to make them measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always should.

> > What do you believe, stupid Mike, baseless mistaken assertions
> > or measurements?
> I believe in measurements, of course. Such as the measurements from the
> first prototype GPS satellite.

Stupid Mike, those clocks "confirming" your idiocies were incorrect.
They had to be corrected.
Do you deny it?
Do you always believe the results obtained with incorrect equipment
that needs calibrating?

> They tried it first with no GR
> correction

Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction, and no
surprise since after the correction measurement results doesn't
fit it. Your moronic religion does require Cs clocks to be set
to 9 192 631 770 - always, everywhere.

On 11/3/2021 12:47 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 17:29:41 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/3/2021 2:12 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 04:56:30 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2021 11:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 15:42:58 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/2/2021 1:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 22:50:17 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/1/2021 12:41 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 14:50:26 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A theory proves nothing. One is not forced to ACCEPT a theory based
>>>>>>>>>> on its own arguments. Certainly no scientist would do that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world anyone can observe GPS
>>>>>>>>> clocks measuring t'=t, just like all serial clocks always did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain. No matter how often you
>>>>>>>> autisticly repeat it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, poor trash: between 2021-11-02 00:00 and 2021-11-03 00:00
>>>>>>> both a ground GPS clock and a satellite GPS clocks will count
>>>>>>> 24*60*60 seconds.
>>>>>> The overall GPS SYSTEM time agrees with a ground clock, yes, however the
>>>>>> point is that the frequency transmitted by a satellite is 10.22999999543
>>>>>
>>>>> No, stupid Mike, it is not. Measured with the GPS satellite clock
>>>>> (the one set to the serious second instead your ISO idiocy)
>>>>> it is 10.23 as well.
>>>>
>>>> So Janitor, why do the GPS specs *explicitly* state the satellite
>>>> transmitter carrier is at 10.22999999543 MHz
>>>
>>> It doesn't. You can't read, stupid Mike. It only says that it "would appear"
>>> as 10.22999999543 to an imagined someone.
>>
>> And the importance of that is,...exactly what?
>>
>> It is set to that frequency before launch, where it WAS measured, and it
>> isn't changed by launching it.
>
> Of course it is changed by launching. Anyone can use the
> clocks to measure.

Explain O drunken janitor? Changed from what to what, and why?
>
>
>>> Besides, even if
>>> they wrote it
>>
>> They did write it. See my response to Dick Hertz.
>
> Right, they did. Means nothing except their obvious
> mistake, as the measurement result is 10.23.
>
>> Nope. Explicitly stated as being 10.22999999543 MHz.
>
> The measurement - direct comparing to the clock of the
> satellite (the one set to the serious second instead your
> ISO idiocy) gives 10.23. Sorry, stupid Mike.
> Sure, if they obeyed your idiot gurus the results would be
> matching your religion. But - common sense has won. It
> always wins, stupid MIke.

Gibberish.
>
>
>> GPS specs aren't assertions.
>
> Sure they are.
>
GPS specs are what the GPS system components are built to.
GPS specs state satellite onboard transmitter carrier is to be set at
10.22999999543 MHz so they are set to that.

On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 06:56:35 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/3/2021 12:47 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 17:29:41 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 11/3/2021 2:12 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 04:56:30 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 11/2/2021 11:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 15:42:58 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/2/2021 1:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 22:50:17 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 11/1/2021 12:41 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 14:50:26 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> A theory proves nothing. One is not forced to ACCEPT a theory based
> >>>>>>>>>> on its own arguments. Certainly no scientist would do that.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world anyone can observe GPS
> >>>>>>>>> clocks measuring t'=t, just like all serial clocks always did.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain. No matter how often you
> >>>>>>>> autisticly repeat it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sorry, poor trash: between 2021-11-02 00:00 and 2021-11-03 00:00
> >>>>>>> both a ground GPS clock and a satellite GPS clocks will count
> >>>>>>> 24*60*60 seconds.
> >>>>>> The overall GPS SYSTEM time agrees with a ground clock, yes, however the
> >>>>>> point is that the frequency transmitted by a satellite is 10.22999999543
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, stupid Mike, it is not. Measured with the GPS satellite clock
> >>>>> (the one set to the serious second instead your ISO idiocy)
> >>>>> it is 10.23 as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> So Janitor, why do the GPS specs *explicitly* state the satellite
> >>>> transmitter carrier is at 10.22999999543 MHz
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't. You can't read, stupid Mike. It only says that it "would appear"
> >>> as 10.22999999543 to an imagined someone.
> >>
> >> And the importance of that is,...exactly what?
> >>
> >> It is set to that frequency before launch, where it WAS measured, and it
> >> isn't changed by launching it.
> >
> > Of course it is changed by launching. Anyone can use the
> > clocks to measure.
> Explain O drunken janitor? Changed from what to what, and why?
> >
> >
> >>> Besides, even if
> >>> they wrote it
> >>
> >> They did write it. See my response to Dick Hertz.
> >
> > Right, they did. Means nothing except their obvious
> > mistake, as the measurement result is 10.23.
> >
> >> Nope. Explicitly stated as being 10.22999999543 MHz.
> >
> > The measurement - direct comparing to the clock of the
> > satellite (the one set to the serious second instead your
> > ISO idiocy) gives 10.23. Sorry, stupid Mike.
> > Sure, if they obeyed your idiot gurus the results would be
> > matching your religion. But - common sense has won. It
> > always wins, stupid MIke.
> Gibberish.

The measurement - direct comparing to the clock of the
satellite (the one set to the serious second instead your
ISO idiocy) gives 10.23. Sorry, stupid Mike. Impudent
denying the facts won't help your Shit in the long run.

> >
> >
> >> GPS specs aren't assertions.
> >
> > Sure they are.
> >
> GPS specs are what the GPS system components are built to.

GPS system components are including some Cs clocks set
to 9 192 631 774. GPS specs are thus inconsistent with
your moronic religion, requiring them to be set to
9 192 631 770. Still, they was trying to obey them both,
common sense and sick relativistic science, so GPS
specs are not quite consistent.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 11/3/2021 12:47 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 17:29:41 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2021 2:12 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 04:56:30 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/2021 11:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 15:42:58 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/2/2021 1:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 22:50:17 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/1/2021 12:41 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 14:50:26 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A theory proves nothing. One is not forced to ACCEPT a theory based
>>>>>>>>>>> on its own arguments. Certainly no scientist would do that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world anyone can observe GPS
>>>>>>>>>> clocks measuring t'=t, just like all serial clocks always did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain. No matter how often you
>>>>>>>>> autisticly repeat it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, poor trash: between 2021-11-02 00:00 and 2021-11-03 00:00
>>>>>>>> both a ground GPS clock and a satellite GPS clocks will count
>>>>>>>> 24*60*60 seconds.
>>>>>>> The overall GPS SYSTEM time agrees with a ground clock, yes, however the
>>>>>>> point is that the frequency transmitted by a satellite is 10.22999999543
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, stupid Mike, it is not. Measured with the GPS satellite clock
>>>>>> (the one set to the serious second instead your ISO idiocy)
>>>>>> it is 10.23 as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> So Janitor, why do the GPS specs *explicitly* state the satellite
>>>>> transmitter carrier is at 10.22999999543 MHz
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't. You can't read, stupid Mike. It only says that it "would appear"
>>>> as 10.22999999543 to an imagined someone.
>>>
>>> And the importance of that is,...exactly what?
>>>
>>> It is set to that frequency before launch, where it WAS measured, and it
>>> isn't changed by launching it.
>>
>> Of course it is changed by launching. Anyone can use the
>> clocks to measure.
>
> Explain O drunken janitor? Changed from what to what, and why?

Who cares? The drunken janitor finds the screw has loosened, so tightens
it. Finds the picture on the wall askew, so straightens it. Finds the scale
offset, so tares it. No need to design as long as there are knobs and shims
to adjust. That’s what best logician engineers do, right?

>>
>>
>>>> Besides, even if
>>>> they wrote it
>>>
>>> They did write it. See my response to Dick Hertz.
>>
>> Right, they did. Means nothing except their obvious
>> mistake, as the measurement result is 10.23.
>>
>>> Nope. Explicitly stated as being 10.22999999543 MHz.
>>
>> The measurement - direct comparing to the clock of the
>> satellite (the one set to the serious second instead your
>> ISO idiocy) gives 10.23. Sorry, stupid Mike.
>> Sure, if they obeyed your idiot gurus the results would be
>> matching your religion. But - common sense has won. It
>> always wins, stupid MIke.
>
> Gibberish.
>>
>>
>>> GPS specs aren't assertions.
>>
>> Sure they are.
>>
> GPS specs are what the GPS system components are built to.
> GPS specs state satellite onboard transmitter carrier is to be set at
> 10.22999999543 MHz so they are set to that.
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 11/4/2021 1:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 00:12:03 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> Did you forget about the first prototype GPS satellite? They tried it
>> with and without the GR correction,
>
> Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction,

Why do you repeat such a false claim? I don't have any "moronic
religion". Relativity is the reason for the GR correction, it REQUIRES
the correction, not forbids it!

> and no
> surprise since after the correction measurement results doesn't
> fit it. Your moronic religion does require Cs clocks to be set
> to 9 192 631 770 - always, everywhere.

Oh that's right. You have the events exactly reversed and use the
failure of the Newtonian settings as evidence GR is wrong!

For anyone else interested:

The first GPS prototype had the ability to turn GR correction on and
off. The results were:

GR correction initially off: Newtonian time and space assumed. Clock
ticked at 9192631770 Cs cycles/second. Downlink carrier set to 10.23
MHz exactly. It didn't work.

GR correction on: GR time dilation assumed. Clock ticked at 9192631774.1
Cs cycles/second. Downlink carrier set to 10.22999999543 MHz exactly.
Downlink carrier received at 10.23 MHz. It worked great.

Our drunk janitor has the events reversed, so in his alcohol-soaked
mind, GR correction was initially on, it didn't work, and they switched
it off and then it worked. Exactly opposite the facts. Poor janitor is
delusional.

>> and once again, Einstein was correct.
> []

Poor deluded janitor.

>>> What do you believe, stupid Mike, baseless mistaken assertions
>>> or measurements?

>> I believe in measurements, of course. Such as the measurements from the
>> first prototype GPS satellite.
>
> Stupid Mike, those clocks "confirming" your idiocies were incorrect.
> They had to be corrected.
> Do you deny it?

I deny YOUR (incorrect) VERSION of the events, of course.

Once again: Newtonian "spacetime" initially assumed. It didn't work.
General Relativity corrections turned ON. GR spacetime now assumed. Now
it worked.

> Do you always believe the results obtained with incorrect equipment
> that needs calibrating?

In this case, everything was correctly calibrated. Yet you lose.

>> They tried it first with no GR
>> correction
>
> Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction,

Wrong. GR requires the correction and explains how to compute it.

> Your moronic religion does require Cs clocks to be set
> to 9 192 631 770 - always, everywhere.

Except that didn't work. It did work when 9192631774.1 was used. Just as
GR predicted. Einstein vindicated again! Have another swig to drown
your sorrows on hearing that, janitor!

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 00:12:03 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> Did you forget about the first prototype GPS satellite? They tried it
>> with and without the GR correction,
>
> Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction,

Dont be silly. Whoops, too late.

Of course it was never stated anywhere that it’s forbidden, but that the
best logician figured it out from sparrow bones tossed in a porcelain bowl.

> and no
> surprise since after the correction measurement results doesn't
> fit it. Your moronic religion does require Cs clocks to be set
> to 9 192 631 770 - always, everywhere.
>
>
>> and once again, Einstein was correct.
>
> Instead, they find that the clocks "confirming" his idiocies
> are incorrect, and corrected them to make them measuring
> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always should.
>
>>> What do you believe, stupid Mike, baseless mistaken assertions
>>> or measurements?
>> I believe in measurements, of course. Such as the measurements from the
>> first prototype GPS satellite.
>
> Stupid Mike, those clocks "confirming" your idiocies were incorrect.
> They had to be corrected.
> Do you deny it?
> Do you always believe the results obtained with incorrect equipment
> that needs calibrating?
>
>
>> They tried it first with no GR
>> correction
>
> Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction, and no
> surprise since after the correction measurement results doesn't
> fit it. Your moronic religion does require Cs clocks to be set
> to 9 192 631 770 - always, everywhere.
>

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