> >> Odd Bodkin wrote:

> The standard for time is based on a LOCAL and AT REST cesium source
> undergoing hyperfine transitions.
>
> It is not based on some cesium source resting in a town on Earth, while
> you’re gallivanting around in a spaceship well outside earth’s gravity well
> and going lickety-split. The spaceship’s second is based on what a cesium
> source LOCAL to the ship and AT REST relative to the ship would say.
>
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

But your statement about clocks in local frames does not address the question I posed does it?
You ignore the question totally.

The question was:
So one twin counts the apparent passing of time according to the daily
solar cycle, and counts say 12 years, but somehow the other twin who has
not aged, while watching the very same solar cycle only witnesses 4 cycles.

Meaning that not only the travelling twins clock in his imaginary frame
has slowed, but the whole universe has obliged, and slowed the orbit of
the Earth around the sun, and the spin of the Earth, WHILE NOT changing
the planetary motions for the twin back on earth.

How do you explain this?

El jueves, 6 de enero de 2022 a las 20:45:40 UTC-3, itsalllies...@gmail.com escribió:
> > >> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> > The standard for time is based on a LOCAL and AT REST cesium source
> > undergoing hyperfine transitions.
> >
> > It is not based on some cesium source resting in a town on Earth, while
> > you’re gallivanting around in a spaceship well outside earth’s gravity well
> > and going lickety-split. The spaceship’s second is based on what a cesium
> > source LOCAL to the ship and AT REST relative to the ship would say.
> >
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> But your statement about clocks in local frames does not address the question I posed does it?
> You ignore the question totally.
>
> The question was:
> So one twin counts the apparent passing of time according to the daily
> solar cycle, and counts say 12 years, but somehow the other twin who has
> not aged, while watching the very same solar cycle only witnesses 4 cycles.
>
> Meaning that not only the travelling twins clock in his imaginary frame
> has slowed, but the whole universe has obliged, and slowed the orbit of
> the Earth around the sun, and the spin of the Earth, WHILE NOT changing
> the planetary motions for the twin back on earth.
>
> How do you explain this?

Try to read and learn more on this, because you are talking nonsense.
A good explanation is given in https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html

Op 06-jan.-2022 om 23:06 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>
>
> Again, your education on this subject is abysmal, and that’s because you
> have not read anything worthwhile. When you decide to change that and start
> reading better stuff, you’ll have a better grip on the subject.

Surely you don't expect him to allow better stuff to
brainwash him?
Has any idiot here allowed that to happen?

Dirk Vdm

Op 05-jan.-2022 om 16:02 schreef Michael Moroney:
> On 1/5/2022 3:32 AM, everything isalllies wrote:
>> rotchm wrote:
>
>>> Up until Einstein's hypothesis, all measurements of the speed of
>>> light all gave the same value. This is an empirical fact.
>>
>> No god, it's not an empirical fact at all.
>> First, to accurately measure the speed of any moving thing, you must
>> conduct a one way trial, between two known locations but no such test
>> has ever been done and indeed can never be done.  You can only claim
>> that you have conducted a TWO way test, out to a reflector, then back
>> to the source location. But here remains a possibility that the
>> velocity in one direction may be different than the other, and all you
>> have is an average speed, not an exact velocity.
>
> Quick question:  If the speed out to the mirror is c+v and the speed
> back is c-v, what will the measured two-way (round trip) speed of light?

As was expected, deafening silence to this ;-)
What a coward.

Dirk Vdm

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:11:19 AM UTC+11, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 06.01.2022 22:02, skrev everything isalllies:
> >
> >> If space time is flat, the equations of GR simplifies to
> >> the equations of SR.
> >>
> >
> >
> > But even Einstein realised that there can be no place where the imaginary "spacetime" could be "flat".
> > He said exactly that.
> >
> > So your comment, "If space time is flat"... is without meaning, spacetime is never flat.
> The water surface in your bathtub is part of a sphere.
> But you can consider it to be flat because your bathtub
> is much smaller than the curvature radius (Earth radius).
> No experiment you can do in your bathtub can be affected
> by the curvature of the water surface.
>
> Same with spacetime. If the region of spacetime is
> small enough (short time, small volume), it can be
> considered flat.
> That's why SR can be used in particle accelerators,
> and for some experiment in a lab.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

Well Paul, you demonstrate whats wrong with Physics today.
When its pointed out that GPS cant use the equations of Lorentz/Einstein for time dilation because of the total lack of Inertial conditions, the excuse is that we "die hard Relativists" can simply make a declaration that a curve is just lot of short straight lines, so the satellites are still in inertial conditions.
Now this is totally the biggest pile of horse shit i have ever read. (actually I've read worse, but cant comment here)
In fact, Ill create a new Conversation to deal with this topic, but maybe tomorrow. Look out for it.
The title will be "curves are straight lines, an Einstein delusion"

On 1/6/2022 7:19 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 05-jan.-2022 om 16:02 schreef Michael Moroney:
>> On 1/5/2022 3:32 AM, everything isalllies wrote:
>>> rotchm wrote:
>>
>>>> Up until Einstein's hypothesis, all measurements of the speed of
>>>> light all gave the same value. This is an empirical fact.
>>>
>>> No god, it's not an empirical fact at all.
>>> First, to accurately measure the speed of any moving thing, you must
>>> conduct a one way trial, between two known locations but no such test
>>> has ever been done and indeed can never be done.  You can only claim
>>> that you have conducted a TWO way test, out to a reflector, then back
>>> to the source location. But here remains a possibility that the
>>> velocity in one direction may be different than the other, and all
>>> you have is an average speed, not an exact velocity.
>>
>> Quick question:  If the speed out to the mirror is c+v and the speed
>> back is c-v, what will the measured two-way (round trip) speed of light?
>
> As was expected, deafening silence to this ;-)
> What a coward.
>
> Dirk Vdm

Yes, as I expected as well. Nothing but crickets.

On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 23:11:24 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> This may come as a shock to you, but mean solar time has not been the
> >> standard of time for a long time now.
> >>
> >> It may suit the needs of everyday use, but then again a wooden yardstick
> >> meets the need of most everyday length measurements too.
> >>
> >> But standards are based on the highest bar need, not the lowest bar need.
> >
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > Again you don't understand that your god Einstein's theories of time
> > warping have logical consequences.
> > If a twin can age years and the other one not, their clocks run at different rates.
> The standard for time is based on a LOCAL and AT REST cesium source
> undergoing hyperfine transitions.

Even some priests of The Shit (we had JJ Lodder here not
so long ago) are rejecting this madness. And just yesterday
you insisted that it's insignificant what the standard is,
didn't you, poor stinker?

On 1/6/2022 6:45 PM, everything isalllies wrote:
>
>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> The standard for time is based on a LOCAL and AT REST cesium source
>> undergoing hyperfine transitions.
>>
>> It is not based on some cesium source resting in a town on Earth, while
>> you’re gallivanting around in a spaceship well outside earth’s gravity well
>> and going lickety-split. The spaceship’s second is based on what a cesium
>> source LOCAL to the ship and AT REST relative to the ship would say.
>>
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> But your statement about clocks in local frames does not address the question I posed does it?
> You ignore the question totally.
>
> The question was:
> So one twin counts the apparent passing of time according to the daily
> solar cycle, and counts say 12 years, but somehow the other twin who has
> not aged, while watching the very same solar cycle only witnesses 4 cycles.
>
> Meaning that not only the travelling twins clock in his imaginary frame
> has slowed, but the whole universe has obliged, and slowed the orbit of
> the Earth around the sun, and the spin of the Earth, WHILE NOT changing
> the planetary motions for the twin back on earth.
>
> How do you explain this?
>
>
I will give you a hint. The earth's motion is a clock. What do you know
about what happens to clocks when viewed at high speeds?

Den 07.01.2022 01:36, skrev everything isalllies:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:11:19 AM UTC+11, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 06.01.2022 22:02, skrev everything isalllies:
>>>
>>>> If space time is flat, the equations of GR simplifies to
>>>> the equations of SR.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But even Einstein realised that there can be no place where the imaginary "spacetime" could be "flat".
>>> He said exactly that.
>>>
>>> So your comment, "If space time is flat"... is without meaning, spacetime is never flat.
>> The water surface in your bathtub is part of a sphere.
>> But you can consider it to be flat because your bathtub
>> is much smaller than the curvature radius (Earth radius).
>> No experiment you can do in your bathtub can be affected
>> by the curvature of the water surface.
>>
>> Same with spacetime. If the region of spacetime is
>> small enough (short time, small volume), it can be
>> considered flat.
>> That's why SR can be used in particle accelerators,
>> and for some experiment in a lab.
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> https://paulba.no/
>
> Well Paul, you demonstrate whats wrong with Physics today.
> When its pointed out that GPS cant use the equations of Lorentz/Einstein for time dilation because of the total lack of Inertial conditions, the excuse is that we "die hard Relativists" can simply make a declaration that a curve is just lot of short straight lines, so the satellites are still in inertial conditions.

A satellite is in inertial motion if no force
is acting on it. It is in free fall.
This has nothing to do with inertial frames.

You seem to think that "physics today" claims
that spacetime in Earth's vicinity can be considered
flat so that you can use SR to calculate the "time dilation".

The GPS are 24+ satellites in free fall in the vicinity
of the Earth. They are orbiting the Earth _because_ spacetime
is curved, so of course spacetime can't be considered flat.
SR isn't applicable, GR must be used.

Here is how:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf

I have told you this several times now,
don't you read the posts you are responding to,
or are you too dumb to understand what you are reading?

> Now this is totally the biggest pile of horse shit i have ever read. (actually I've read worse, but cant comment here)
> In fact, Ill create a new Conversation to deal with this topic, but maybe tomorrow. Look out for it.
> The title will be "curves are straight lines, an Einstein delusion"

OK. You are too dumb and ignorant.
I won't bother you any more.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 11:47:43 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>
> Here is how:
> https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf

Your fellow idiot Tom would gladly explain you that
according to The Shit these rates have to be the same...

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 23:11:24 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> This may come as a shock to you, but mean solar time has not been the
>>>> standard of time for a long time now.
>>>>
>>>> It may suit the needs of everyday use, but then again a wooden yardstick
>>>> meets the need of most everyday length measurements too.
>>>>
>>>> But standards are based on the highest bar need, not the lowest bar need.
>>>
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> Again you don't understand that your god Einstein's theories of time
>>> warping have logical consequences.
>>> If a twin can age years and the other one not, their clocks run at different rates.
>> The standard for time is based on a LOCAL and AT REST cesium source
>> undergoing hyperfine transitions.
>
> Even some priests of The Shit (we had JJ Lodder here not
> so long ago) are rejecting this madness. And just yesterday
> you insisted that it's insignificant what the standard is,
> didn't you, poor stinker?
>

No, I did not say that. I said it changes over time. That isn’t saying it’s
insignificant.

Words. You have to know what they mean.

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

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> The standard for time is based on a LOCAL and AT REST cesium source
>> undergoing hyperfine transitions.
>>
>> It is not based on some cesium source resting in a town on Earth, while
>> you’re gallivanting around in a spaceship well outside earth’s gravity well
>> and going lickety-split. The spaceship’s second is based on what a cesium
>> source LOCAL to the ship and AT REST relative to the ship would say.
>>
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> But your statement about clocks in local frames does not address the
> question I posed does it?
> You ignore the question totally.
>
> The question was:
> So one twin counts the apparent passing of time according to the daily
> solar cycle, and counts say 12 years, but somehow the other twin who has
> not aged, while watching the very same solar cycle only witnesses 4 cycles.

What on earth gave you the idea that would happen?

The traveling twin’s age is based on how many times his own clock went all
the way around, not by looking through a telescope at the Earth.

Are you nuts?

>
> Meaning that not only the travelling twins clock in his imaginary frame
> has slowed, but the whole universe has obliged, and slowed the orbit of
> the Earth around the sun, and the spin of the Earth, WHILE NOT changing
> the planetary motions for the twin back on earth.
>
> How do you explain this?
>
>
>

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

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:11:19 AM UTC+11, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 06.01.2022 22:02, skrev everything isalllies:
>>>
>>>> If space time is flat, the equations of GR simplifies to
>>>> the equations of SR.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But even Einstein realised that there can be no place where the
>>> imaginary "spacetime" could be "flat".
>>> He said exactly that.
>>>
>>> So your comment, "If space time is flat"... is without meaning, spacetime is never flat.
>> The water surface in your bathtub is part of a sphere.
>> But you can consider it to be flat because your bathtub
>> is much smaller than the curvature radius (Earth radius).
>> No experiment you can do in your bathtub can be affected
>> by the curvature of the water surface.
>>
>> Same with spacetime. If the region of spacetime is
>> small enough (short time, small volume), it can be
>> considered flat.
>> That's why SR can be used in particle accelerators,
>> and for some experiment in a lab.
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> https://paulba.no/
>
> Well Paul, you demonstrate whats wrong with Physics today.
> When its pointed out that GPS cant use the equations of Lorentz/Einstein
> for time dilation because of the total lack of Inertial conditions, the
> excuse is that we "die hard Relativists" can simply make a declaration
> that a curve is just lot of short straight lines, so the satellites are
> still in inertial conditions.
> Now this is totally the biggest pile of horse shit i have ever read.
> (actually I've read worse, but cant comment here)

Well, no, physicists are not going to say that. If you attempted that,
you’d get the wrong answer. The difference in clock elapsed time between
ground and satellite requires GR because there’s a difference in
gravitational potential.

More and more it’s clear you don’t have the foggiest idea what relativity
says. Snippet here, snippet there, that’s all you have.

> In fact, Ill create a new Conversation to deal with this topic, but
> maybe tomorrow. Look out for it.
> The title will be "curves are straight lines, an Einstein delusion"
>

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

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 8:29:30 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:11:19 AM UTC+11, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 06.01.2022 22:02, skrev everything isalllies:
> >>>
> >>>> If space time is flat, the equations of GR simplifies to
> >>>> the equations of SR.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> But even Einstein realised that there can be no place where the
> >>> imaginary "spacetime" could be "flat".
> >>> He said exactly that.
> >>>
> >>> So your comment, "If space time is flat"... is without meaning, spacetime is never flat.
> >> The water surface in your bathtub is part of a sphere.
> >> But you can consider it to be flat because your bathtub
> >> is much smaller than the curvature radius (Earth radius).
> >> No experiment you can do in your bathtub can be affected
> >> by the curvature of the water surface.
> >>
> >> Same with spacetime. If the region of spacetime is
> >> small enough (short time, small volume), it can be
> >> considered flat.
> >> That's why SR can be used in particle accelerators,
> >> and for some experiment in a lab.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> https://paulba.no/
> >
> > Well Paul, you demonstrate whats wrong with Physics today.
> > When its pointed out that GPS cant use the equations of Lorentz/Einstein
> > for time dilation because of the total lack of Inertial conditions, the
> > excuse is that we "die hard Relativists" can simply make a declaration
> > that a curve is just lot of short straight lines, so the satellites are
> > still in inertial conditions.
> > Now this is totally the biggest pile of horse shit i have ever read.
> > (actually I've read worse, but cant comment here)
> Well, no, physicists are not going to say that. If you attempted that,
> you’d get the wrong answer. The difference in clock elapsed time between
> ground and satellite requires GR because there’s a difference in
> gravitational potential.

Not just gravitational effect......also there is the velocity effect. The combined effect is 38 us/day.
>
> More and more it’s clear you don’t have the foggiest idea what relativity
> says. Snippet here, snippet there, that’s all you have.
> > In fact, Ill create a new Conversation to deal with this topic, but
> > maybe tomorrow. Look out for it.
> > The title will be "curves are straight lines, an Einstein delusion"
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 8:29:30 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:11:19 AM UTC+11, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 06.01.2022 22:02, skrev everything isalllies:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If space time is flat, the equations of GR simplifies to
>>>>>> the equations of SR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But even Einstein realised that there can be no place where the
>>>>> imaginary "spacetime" could be "flat".
>>>>> He said exactly that.
>>>>>
>>>>> So your comment, "If space time is flat"... is without meaning,
>>>>> spacetime is never flat.
>>>> The water surface in your bathtub is part of a sphere.
>>>> But you can consider it to be flat because your bathtub
>>>> is much smaller than the curvature radius (Earth radius).
>>>> No experiment you can do in your bathtub can be affected
>>>> by the curvature of the water surface.
>>>>
>>>> Same with spacetime. If the region of spacetime is
>>>> small enough (short time, small volume), it can be
>>>> considered flat.
>>>> That's why SR can be used in particle accelerators,
>>>> and for some experiment in a lab.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> https://paulba.no/
>>>
>>> Well Paul, you demonstrate whats wrong with Physics today.
>>> When its pointed out that GPS cant use the equations of Lorentz/Einstein
>>> for time dilation because of the total lack of Inertial conditions, the
>>> excuse is that we "die hard Relativists" can simply make a declaration
>>> that a curve is just lot of short straight lines, so the satellites are
>>> still in inertial conditions.
>>> Now this is totally the biggest pile of horse shit i have ever read.
>>> (actually I've read worse, but cant comment here)
>> Well, no, physicists are not going to say that. If you attempted that,
>> you’d get the wrong answer. The difference in clock elapsed time between
>> ground and satellite requires GR because there’s a difference in
>> gravitational potential.
>
> Not just gravitational effect......also there is the velocity effect. The
> combined effect is 38 us/day.

It’s ALL a GR effect. It’s crap what you’ve read that says the two are
separable.

>>
>> More and more it’s clear you don’t have the foggiest idea what relativity
>> says. Snippet here, snippet there, that’s all you have.
>>> In fact, Ill create a new Conversation to deal with this topic, but
>>> maybe tomorrow. Look out for it.
>>> The title will be "curves are straight lines, an Einstein delusion"
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On 1/10/2022 9:32 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 8:29:30 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:11:19 AM UTC+11, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>> Den 06.01.2022 22:02, skrev everything isalllies:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If space time is flat, the equations of GR simplifies to
>>>>>>> the equations of SR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But even Einstein realised that there can be no place where the
>>>>>> imaginary "spacetime" could be "flat".
>>>>>> He said exactly that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So your comment, "If space time is flat"... is without meaning,
>>>>>> spacetime is never flat.
>>>>> The water surface in your bathtub is part of a sphere.
>>>>> But you can consider it to be flat because your bathtub
>>>>> is much smaller than the curvature radius (Earth radius).
>>>>> No experiment you can do in your bathtub can be affected
>>>>> by the curvature of the water surface.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same with spacetime. If the region of spacetime is
>>>>> small enough (short time, small volume), it can be
>>>>> considered flat.
>>>>> That's why SR can be used in particle accelerators,
>>>>> and for some experiment in a lab.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> https://paulba.no/
>>>>
>>>> Well Paul, you demonstrate whats wrong with Physics today.
>>>> When its pointed out that GPS cant use the equations of Lorentz/Einstein
>>>> for time dilation because of the total lack of Inertial conditions, the
>>>> excuse is that we "die hard Relativists" can simply make a declaration
>>>> that a curve is just lot of short straight lines, so the satellites are
>>>> still in inertial conditions.
>>>> Now this is totally the biggest pile of horse shit i have ever read.
>>>> (actually I've read worse, but cant comment here)
>>> Well, no, physicists are not going to say that. If you attempted that,
>>> you’d get the wrong answer. The difference in clock elapsed time between
>>> ground and satellite requires GR because there’s a difference in
>>> gravitational potential.
>>
>> Not just gravitational effect......also there is the velocity effect. The
>> combined effect is 38 us/day.
>
> It’s ALL a GR effect. It’s crap what you’ve read that says the two are
> separable.

Being separable is an APPROXIMATION which works for the relatively low
speeds of orbital GPS and the relatively weak gravity of the earth.
Doing so just makes the math easier. (yes I know "easier math" is a
foreign concept to you, Ken)

In reality it's all GR, and you have to include the velocity in your
calculations.

On Monday, 10 January 2022 at 16:13:55 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 1/10/2022 9:32 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 8:29:30 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:11:19 AM UTC+11, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>>> Den 06.01.2022 22:02, skrev everything isalllies:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If space time is flat, the equations of GR simplifies to
> >>>>>>> the equations of SR.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But even Einstein realised that there can be no place where the
> >>>>>> imaginary "spacetime" could be "flat".
> >>>>>> He said exactly that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So your comment, "If space time is flat"... is without meaning,
> >>>>>> spacetime is never flat.
> >>>>> The water surface in your bathtub is part of a sphere.
> >>>>> But you can consider it to be flat because your bathtub
> >>>>> is much smaller than the curvature radius (Earth radius).
> >>>>> No experiment you can do in your bathtub can be affected
> >>>>> by the curvature of the water surface.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Same with spacetime. If the region of spacetime is
> >>>>> small enough (short time, small volume), it can be
> >>>>> considered flat.
> >>>>> That's why SR can be used in particle accelerators,
> >>>>> and for some experiment in a lab.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Paul
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://paulba.no/
> >>>>
> >>>> Well Paul, you demonstrate whats wrong with Physics today.
> >>>> When its pointed out that GPS cant use the equations of Lorentz/Einstein
> >>>> for time dilation because of the total lack of Inertial conditions, the
> >>>> excuse is that we "die hard Relativists" can simply make a declaration
> >>>> that a curve is just lot of short straight lines, so the satellites are
> >>>> still in inertial conditions.
> >>>> Now this is totally the biggest pile of horse shit i have ever read.
> >>>> (actually I've read worse, but cant comment here)
> >>> Well, no, physicists are not going to say that. If you attempted that,
> >>> you’d get the wrong answer. The difference in clock elapsed time between
> >>> ground and satellite requires GR because there’s a difference in
> >>> gravitational potential.
> >>
> >> Not just gravitational effect......also there is the velocity effect. The
> >> combined effect is 38 us/day.
> >
> > It’s ALL a GR effect. It’s crap what you’ve read that says the two are
> > separable.
> Being separable is an APPROXIMATION which works for the relatively low
> speeds of orbital GPS and the relatively weak gravity of the earth.
> Doing so just makes the math easier. (yes I know "easier math" is a
> foreign concept to you, Ken)
>
> In reality it's

that forbidden by your moronic religion TAI and GPS keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.