On 5/4/2022 10:24 AM, whodat wrote:
> On 5/4/2022 2:54 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 4 May 2022 at 09:34:55 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think that Bodkin is having a nervous breakdown by now.
>>>>
>>>> He can't fulfill his quota of 20-30 posts a day, since 2014. Also
>>>> Moroney,
>>>> Python and many others.
>>>>
>>>> Who's going to defend relativity, science and Einstein now?
>>> Why defending?
>>
>> Because that's what your insane Shit has trained you
>> for, poor halfbrain.
>
> Actually relativity needs no defense because it functions as intended
> and nobody has been able to replace it.
>
>>> This group exists for amusement,
>>
>> :)))))
>
> Yes indeed, I get a good laugh now and again.

I received several replies that I choose not to reply to directly.

They all had the same thing to say--

Waaaaah Waaaaah Waaaaah

Entertain yourselves folks, you don't know what you're talking about,
and you all sound much like Gilbert and Sullivan to me, shallow,
repetitive and vapid best suited to the lowest classes. You know who
and what you are.

====================================================================

Separate topic:
Those of you who have been blocked by AIOE from posting here, may I
suggest that if you are intent to post here the site I use costs 10
Euros a year. Type news.individual.net into your favorite search
engine and you'll get to the business end of the provider.

Presently 10 euros is about $ 10.61 US. If you use PayPal there's
no currency conversion fee involved.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 3:04:39 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Thankfully, 99.99% of physicists didn't use relativity at all, and it's
> > > relegated to the pseudosciences of cosmology and particle physics.
>
> > Au contraire, -all- of physics depends on it.
> > All precision measurement and standards setting
> > depends on accurate timekeeping, and accurate timekeeping
> > depends on having the relativistic corrections correct.
> >
> > And yes, people who work at standards labs,
> > like BIPM or NIST know it.
> > All others take their standards from them,
> >
> > Jan
>
> Are you out of your mind? You have to be a very delusional person if you
> try to connect atomic clocks to ANY relativistic correction!

I really had no idea that you were that clueless.
Relativistic clock corrections have been known and measured for over
fifty years by now.

> Stop spreading lies and being deceptive, and download books and papers on
> the topic of atomic clocks, INCLUDING state of the art crystal lattice
> optical clocks, which are claimed to be accurate to 1 femtosecond, while
> operating at frequencies 100,000 times above 10 Ghz cesium clocks.

Strontium lattice frequency standards demonstrate
general relativistic frequency shifts for height differences
of less than one centimeter outside the clocks,
and to fractions of a millimeter inside.
Relativistic geodesy, aka chronometric leveling,
is rapidly becoming an applied technology.

> Find out, and present evidence here, that THE SLIGHTEST TRACE of
> relativity is being used with them.
>
> Also, find out about chinese researchers working on optical clocks, 100
> times more accurate than NIST or BIMP prototypes (because optical clocks
> have not been validated as any type of standard YET).
>
> As I wrote before, relativity is a dead para-science, closer to the realm
> of metaphysics married with new_age_philosophy. Confined ONLY to the
> grounds of cosmology and particle physics, where results CAN'T BE
> DEMONSTRATED, so they lack accountability.
>
> Pure bla, bla, bla, with ZERO EVIDENCE and the impossibility to prove that
> results aren't cooked or are just a wet dream.
>
> Those two areas are more a terrain for topics on scify movies or books,
> than anything else.

You are really making a complete fool of yourself here.
Do read up on reality,

Jan

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:

> On 5/4/2022 10:24 AM, whodat wrote:
> > On 5/4/2022 2:54 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 4 May 2022 at 09:34:55 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I think that Bodkin is having a nervous breakdown by now.
> >>>>
> >>>> He can't fulfill his quota of 20-30 posts a day, since 2014. Also
> >>>> Moroney,
> >>>> Python and many others.
> >>>>
> >>>> Who's going to defend relativity, science and Einstein now?
> >>> Why defending?
> >>
> >> Because that's what your insane Shit has trained you
> >> for, poor halfbrain.
> >
> > Actually relativity needs no defense because it functions as intended
> > and nobody has been able to replace it.
> >
> >>> This group exists for amusement,
> >>
> >> :)))))
> >
> > Yes indeed, I get a good laugh now and again.
>
>
> I received several replies that I choose not to reply to directly.
>
> They all had the same thing to say--
>
> Waaaaah Waaaaah Waaaaah
>
> Entertain yourselves folks, you don't know what you're talking about,
> and you all sound much like Gilbert and Sullivan to me, shallow,
> repetitive and vapid best suited to the lowest classes. You know who
> and what you are.
>
> ====================================================================
>
> Separate topic:
> Those of you who have been blocked by AIOE from posting here, may I
> suggest that if you are intent to post here the site I use costs 10
> Euros a year. Type news.individual.net into your favorite search
> engine and you'll get to the business end of the provider.
>
> Presently 10 euros is about $ 10.61 US. If you use PayPal there's
> no currency conversion fee involved.

Or use Eternal September, which is free.
(it has been up for a long time)

Another possibility: buy some GB of non-expiring credit
at some commercial usenet provider, for a few dollars.
If you use it for text groups only you will never run out.

Jan

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 5:16:16 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip>

> > > Jan
> >
> > Are you out of your mind? You have to be a very delusional person if you
> > try to connect atomic clocks to ANY relativistic correction!

> I really had no idea that you were that clueless.
> Relativistic clock corrections have been known and measured for over fifty years by now.

<snip>

> Strontium lattice frequency standards demonstrate general relativistic frequency shifts for height differences
> of less than one centimeter outside the clocks, and to fractions of a millimeter inside.

> Relativistic geodesy, aka chronometric leveling, is rapidly becoming an applied technology.

> You are really making a complete fool of yourself here. Do read up on reality,
>
> Jan

OK, another imbecile like Paul Andersen and his assertions that TAI should be corrected to the level of 10E-18 seconds,
like the retarded at the PTB institute in Germany. They affirm that such corrections should be applied to every atomic clock
in the world, depending on its height wrt the normalized average ground level.

Mobile atomic clock used as an altimeter
Great potential for uniform measurements of the Earth’s surface

https://www.ptb.de/cms/fileadmin/internet/publikationen/ptb_news/pdf/englisch/PTBnews_2018_3_e.pdf

For the first measurement campaign, PTB’s mobile strontium optical clock was placed in its car trailer and driven
to the Modane Underground Laboratory (France), which is located halfway through the Fréjus tunnel on the border
between France and Italy. There, a team from PTB and from NPL, the national metrology institute of Great Britain,
operated the clock and transmitted its frequency via a 150 km fiber-glass link to INRIM, the national metrology
institute of Italy, in Turin, where a second atomic clock was used to measure the frequency of the strontium clock.

A relative change in frequency of approx. 1 · 10–13 was then observed. By multiplying this change in
frequency by the squared speed of light, one obtains the underlying change in potential.

So, RETARDED PEOPLE PERSEVERES. This is an excerpt from the 1911 Einstein's paper:

*******************************************
Uber den EinfluB der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbredtung des Lichtes;

Wenn die im gleichformig beschleunigten System K' in S2, gegen S1, emittierte Strahlung mit Bezug auf die in S2, be.indliche Uhr die Frequenz F2 besc6, so besitzt sie in bezug auf S1 bei ihrer Ankuoft in S1, in bezng auf die in S1, befindliche gleich beschaffene Uhr iiicht mehr die Frequenz f2 sondern eine groBere Frequenz f1, derilrt, daB in erster Anniiheruug

f1 = f2 (1+ g.h/c²)
*******************************************

So, for 112 years, imbeciles cretins (using E=mc² onto gravitational potential) keep sustaining the myth that they created around GPS.

Adapting to 2022 notation the 1911 formula:

Δf/f = g.Δh/c²

And, following PTB terms:

g.Δh = c² (Δf/f)

OR

Δh = c² (Δf/f)/g (This is the fucking altimeter, 1 metric ton and 1 million USD),

But something is wrong here. It smells fishy. WHICH IS THE VALUE OF g?

Because g₀ = G.Me/r₀² , isn't it?

And g₀ (average value of g at a distance r₀ from Earth's center) IS NOT A STANDARD, and barely has more than THREE DIGITS.

9.81 m/sec

But, if the fucking altimeter is going to go full retarded, you have to use:

Δh = r₀² c² (Δf/f)/(G.Me)

Now the problem has moved to CALCULATE(?) which is the correct value of r₀.

It looks like a carousel to me, besides the fact that the 1911 formula (which is used in GPS still today) IS PURE, ABSOLUTE CRAP.

But WHO is going to contradict the "experts" at the fucking PTB?

It's like a theological problem and one want to discuss it with the Pope Francis.

Pure, absolute crap, sustained only because the jerks working at the PTB are not accountable for the shit they do and publish.

Should exist a SCIENCE'S CRIME COURT, to bring every pervert working in science to a trial.

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 10:03:32 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> for those who use free newsservers...
>
> if i'm not mistaken
>
> sci.physics.relativity is on the banlist now as of today.
>
>
> https://news.aioe.org/documentation/access-restrictions/
>
> nntp.aioe.org:
> news.aioe.org:
>
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

Starmaker, can you please bottomline this for us? What are the implications, if any?

I suggest this forum should rate the abusers--at least for posterity, so that future generations will know who were the worst actors and abusers at the start of the Information Age. Can I get an amen?

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 3:41:28 PM UTC-7, utter cretin Richard Hertz wrote:

> Adapting to 2022 notation the 1911 formula:
>
> Δf/f = g.Δh/c²
>
> And, following PTB terms:
>
> g.Δh = c² (Δf/f)

Dick,

You need to stop blaming GR for your cretinism. This is not how the scientists used GR, "g" never comes into play. I will not tell tell you how it was done because keeping you basking in your imbecility is what make you so entertaining. I will just give you a hint: you need to start with the Schwarzschild solution. I noticed that as of late, keeping in line with you being THE odious kapo, you started disparaging Schwarzschild as well.

patdolan wrote:
>
> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 10:03:32 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > for those who use free newsservers...
> >
> > if i'm not mistaken
> >
> > sci.physics.relativity is on the banlist now as of today.
> >
> >
> > https://news.aioe.org/documentation/access-restrictions/
> >
> > nntp.aioe.org:
> > news.aioe.org:
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
>
> Starmaker, can you please bottomline this for us? What are the implications, if any?
>
> I suggest this forum should rate the abusers--at least for posterity, so that future generations will know who were the worst actors and abusers at the start of the Information Age. Can I get an amen?

Who do you think is the number one Lurker right now?

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

On Wednesday, 4 May 2022 at 22:09:35 UTC+2, whodat wrote:
> On 5/4/2022 10:24 AM, whodat wrote:
> > On 5/4/2022 2:54 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 4 May 2022 at 09:34:55 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I think that Bodkin is having a nervous breakdown by now.
> >>>>
> >>>> He can't fulfill his quota of 20-30 posts a day, since 2014. Also
> >>>> Moroney,
> >>>> Python and many others.
> >>>>
> >>>> Who's going to defend relativity, science and Einstein now?
> >>> Why defending?
> >>
> >> Because that's what your insane Shit has trained you
> >> for, poor halfbrain.
> >
> > Actually relativity needs no defense because it functions as intended
> > and nobody has been able to replace it.
> >
> >>> This group exists for amusement,
> >>
> >> :)))))
> >
> > Yes indeed, I get a good laugh now and again.
> I received several replies that I choose not to reply to directly.
>
> They all had the same thing to say--
>
> Waaaaah Waaaaah Waaaaah

Stop fucking, poor trash. You're simply unable for
anything but barking and insulting, just as expected
from a relativistic idiot.

On Wednesday, 4 May 2022 at 22:16:16 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Relativistic geodesy, aka chronometric leveling,
> is rapidly becoming an applied technology.

But the real contribution of your Shit to it is --
insisting it is wrong. It was you saying that
any corrections against the Holiest Postulate
and Lorentz's symmetry must be wrong, wasn't
you?

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 10:20:48 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 3:41:28 PM UTC-7, utter cretin Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > Adapting to 2022 notation the 1911 formula:
> >
> > Δf/f = g.Δh/c²
> >
> > And, following PTB terms:
> >
> > g.Δh = c² (Δf/f)

> Dick,
>
>
> You need to stop blaming GR for your cretinism. This is not how the scientists used GR, "g" never comes into play. I will not tell tell you how it was done because keeping you basking in your imbecility is what make you so entertaining. I will just give you a hint: you need to start with the Schwarzschild solution. I noticed that as of late, keeping in line with you being THE odious kapo, you started disparaging Schwarzschild as well.

Listen Gono, I told you one thousand times that what your cretin pagan God wrote this in 1911, and is embedded (almost unaltered) on
the Hilbert-Schwarzschild solution that your mamma taught you.

I use g as I feel like to do, as it is equivalent to what your drooling relativistic friends uses EVERY TIME, because none of you can think
of a different solution after 105 years, because you all are a fucking bunch of retarded people. And fuck the other THREE solutions that
your imbecile partners found (a non charged dot that rotates, and a charged dot that either rotates or not).

You, assholes, can't find another solution even if I give a 1,000 years time lapse.

I am who told you about the 2017 Mudrak paper, which contains almost no difference, IMBECILE.

Read again about it on this thread, as I'm not going to repeat it for you, fucking retarded!

Einstein's doctrine for GR succeeded to be installed within the atom, in Germany.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/r25fp7Vjlhw/m/mMNqJJH4AQAJ

Dono. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 3:41:28 PM UTC-7, utter cretin Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > Adapting to 2022 notation the 1911 formula:
> >
> > Δf/f = g.Δh/c²
> >
> > And, following PTB terms:
> >
> > g.Δh = c² (Δf/f)
>
> Dick,

You're gay too? Well, the fact is Israel is the number one gay population people in the world. (including the israeli army, all a bunch of fags.) (they kill babies, don't they?)

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

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 9:38:33 PM UTC-7, utter cretin Richard Hertz kept eating shit:
> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 10:20:48 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 3:41:28 PM UTC-7, utter cretin Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > > Adapting to 2022 notation the 1911 formula:
> > >
> > > Δf/f = g.Δh/c²
> > >
> > > And, following PTB terms:
> > >
> > > g.Δh = c² (Δf/f)
>
>
> > Dick,
> >
> >
> > You need to stop blaming GR for your cretinism. This is not how the scientists used GR, "g" never comes into play. I will not tell tell you how it was done because keeping you basking in your imbecility is what make you so entertaining. I will just give you a hint: you need to start with the Schwarzschild solution. I noticed that as of late, keeping in line with you being THE odious kapo, you started disparaging Schwarzschild as well.
> Listen Gono, I told you one thousand times that what your cretin pagan God wrote this in 1911, and is embedded (almost unaltered) on
> the Hilbert-Schwarzschild solution

No, it's not, keep eating shit, Dick. There is no "g" in the Schwarzschild solution.

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:32:59 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 9:38:33 PM UTC-7, utter cretin Richard Hertz kept eating shit:
> > On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 10:20:48 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 3:41:28 PM UTC-7, utter cretin Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Adapting to 2022 notation the 1911 formula:
> > > >
> > > > Δf/f = g.Δh/c²
> > > >
> > > > And, following PTB terms:
> > > >
> > > > g.Δh = c² (Δf/f)
> >
> >
> > > Dick,
> > >
> > >
> > > You need to stop blaming GR for your cretinism. This is not how the scientists used GR, "g" never comes into play. I will not tell tell you how it was done because keeping you basking in your imbecility is what make you so entertaining. I will just give you a hint: you need to start with the Schwarzschild solution. I noticed that as of late, keeping in line with you being THE odious kapo, you started disparaging Schwarzschild as well.
> > Listen Gono, I told you one thousand times that what your cretin pagan God wrote this in 1911, and is embedded (almost unaltered) on
> > the Hilbert-Schwarzschild solution
> No, it's not, keep eating shit, Dick. There is no "g" in the Schwarzschild solution.

I wrote it ON PURPOSE, fucking senile dement!

I don't give a shit about the formal Schwarzschild-Hilbert solution. I USE IT AS I WANT!

Unless you, imbecile, are questioning the validity of:

Newton: g₀ = G.Me/r₀²

Are you questioning it? Really?

IF NOT, then I can replace G.Me with g₀ r₀² ANYWHERE I want. Capishe?

Cretin.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 5:16:16 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > Are you out of your mind? You have to be a very delusional person if you
> > > try to connect atomic clocks to ANY relativistic correction!
>
> > I really had no idea that you were that clueless.
> > Relativistic clock corrections have been known and measured for over
> fifty years by now.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Strontium lattice frequency standards demonstrate general relativistic
> > frequency shifts for height differences of less than one centimeter
> > outside the clocks, and to fractions of a millimeter inside.
>
> > Relativistic geodesy, aka chronometric leveling, is rapidly becoming an
> applied technology.
>
> > You are really making a complete fool of yourself here. Do read up on
> > reality,
> >
> > Jan
>
> OK, another imbecile like Paul Andersen and his assertions that TAI should
> be corrected to the level of 10E-18 seconds, like the retarded at the PTB
> institute in Germany. They affirm that such corrections should be applied
> to every atomic clock in the world, depending on its height wrt the
> normalized average ground level.

Nothing to do with PTB in particular.
Relativistic corrections have ben applied routinely
in the calculation of TAI sice 1978.

> Mobile atomic clock used as an altimeter
> Great potential for uniform measurements of the Earth's surface
>
> https://www.ptb.de/cms/fileadmin/internet/publikationen/ptb_news/pdf/englisch/
PTBnews_2018_3_e.pdf
>
>
> For the first measurement campaign, PTB's mobile strontium optical clock
> was placed in its car trailer and driven to the Modane Underground
> Laboratory (France), which is located halfway through the Fréjus tunnel
> on the border between France and Italy. There, a team from PTB and
> from NPL, the national metrology institute of Great Britain, operated
> the clock and transmitted its frequency via a 150 km fiber-glass
> link to INRIM, the national metrology institute of Italy, in
> Turin, where a second atomic clock was used to measure the
> frequency of the strontium clock.
>
> A relative change in frequency of approx. 1 · 10–13 was then observed.
> By multiplying this change in frequency by the squared speed of
> light, one obtains the underlying change in potential.

Correct. it is about 10^-16 per meter, so 10^-13 for a thousand meter.
Measuremnet and theory agree.

> So, RETARDED PEOPLE PERSEVERES. This is an excerpt from the 1911
> Einstein's paper:
>
> *******************************************
> Uber den EinfluB der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbredtung des Lichtes;
>
> Wenn die im gleichformig beschleunigten System K' in S2, gegen S1,
> emittierte Strahlung mit Bezug auf die in S2, be.indliche Uhr die Frequenz
> F2 besc6, so besitzt sie in bezug auf S1 bei ihrer Ankuoft in S1, in bezng
> auf die in S1, befindliche gleich beschaffene Uhr iiicht mehr die Frequenz
> f2 sondern eine groBere Frequenz f1, derilrt, daB in erster Anniiheruug
>
> f1 = f2 (1+ g.h/c?)
> *******************************************

Correct, in the Newtonian approximation,
if you remember that g \Delta h = \Delta\Phi,
with \phi the Newtonian potential.

> So, for 112 years, imbeciles cretins (using E=mc? onto gravitational
> potential) keep sustaining the myth that they created around GPS.
>
> Adapting to 2022 notation the 1911 formula:
>
> ?f/f = g.?h/c?
>
> And, following PTB terms:
>
> g.?h = c? (?f/f)
>
> OR
>
> ?h = c? (?f/f)/g (This is the fucking altimeter, 1 metric ton and 1
> million USD),
>
> But something is wrong here. It smells fishy. WHICH IS THE VALUE OF g?
>
> Because g? = G.Me/r?? , isn't it?

No, in this approximation g = d\phi/dh

> And g? (average value of g at a distance r? from Earth's center) IS NOT A
> STANDARD, and barely has more than THREE DIGITS.
>
> 9.81 m/sec

Routinely measured to 10 significant digits, these days.
Needed for the determination of the standard kilogram.

> But, if the fucking altimeter is going to go full retarded, you have to use:
>
> ?h = r?? c? (?f/f)/(G.Me)

For larger height differences you need \Delta\Phi = \int dr g(r)

To correct you misunderstandings: this is NOT an altimeter.
(and that is precisely why it is so valuable)
It measures the Newtonian potential directly.
(directly relevant for computing sea level rise)

> Now the problem has moved to CALCULATE(?) which is the correct value of
> r?.
>
> It looks like a carousel to me, besides the fact that the 1911 formula
> (which is used in GPS still today) IS PURE, ABSOLUTE CRAP.
>
> But WHO is going to contradict the "experts" at the fucking PTB?

Certainly not a clueless klutz like you,

Jan

Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 3:41:28 PM UTC-7, utter cretin Richard Hertz:
>
> > Adapting to 2022 notation the 1911 formula:
> >
> > ?f/f = g.?h/c?
> >
> > And, following PTB terms:
> >
> > g.?h = c? (?f/f)
>
> You need to stop blaming GR for your cretinism. This is not how the
> scientists used GR, "g" never comes into play. I will not tell tell you
> how it was done because keeping you basking in your imbecility is what
> make you so entertaining. I will just give you a hint: you need to start
> with the Schwarzschild solution. I noticed that as of late, keeping in
> line with you being THE odious kapo, you started disparaging Schwarzschild
> as well.

Yes, that's fine for the two body problem.
For the whole solar system you really need the Newtonian approximation,
and the potentials, (see MTW for a derivation)

Jan

On Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 09:30:33 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Nothing to do with PTB in particular.
> Relativistic corrections have ben applied routinely

That's of course, a pathetic lie, as expected from relativistic
scum. You've written yourself, not so long ago, according to
your religion and its Holiest Postulate corrected clocks are
wrong, and that's the REAL approach of The Shit to these
corrections.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 09:30:33 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Nothing to do with PTB in particular.
> > Relativistic corrections have been applied routinely
>
> That's of course, a pathetic lie, as expected from relativistic
> scum. You've written yourself, not so long ago, according to
> your religion and its Holiest Postulate corrected clocks are
> wrong, and that's the REAL approach of The Shit to these
> corrections.

Message-ID please?

Jan

On Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 11:00:13 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 09:30:33 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > > Nothing to do with PTB in particular.
> > > Relativistic corrections have been applied routinely
> >
> > That's of course, a pathetic lie, as expected from relativistic
> > scum. You've written yourself, not so long ago, according to
> > your religion and its Holiest Postulate corrected clocks are
> > wrong, and that's the REAL approach of The Shit to these
> > corrections.
> Message-ID please?

Quoting:
> There is nothing to prove, it is an a-priori.
> Space-time has local Lorentz invariance by postulate. (Einstein 1905)
> This means that space and time must be measured in such a way
> that local Lorentz invariance holds.
> If you measure something else, that only means
> that you have set up your measurements
> in a way that is somehow wrong.

That's right; this is an a priori, this is just one of the
consequences of your madness - GPS and other
corrected clocks are wrong. W-R-O-N-G. "Somehow".

Your idiot guru had indeed a really good reason to ban
common sense from your moronic physics.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 11:00:13 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 09:30:33 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nothing to do with PTB in particular.
> > > > Relativistic corrections have been applied routinely
> > >
> > > That's of course, a pathetic lie, as expected from relativistic
> > > scum. You've written yourself, not so long ago, according to
> > > your religion and its Holiest Postulate corrected clocks are
> > > wrong, and that's the REAL approach of The Shit to these
> > > corrections.
> > Message-ID please?
>
> Quoting:
> > There is nothing to prove, it is an a-priori.
> > Space-time has local Lorentz invariance by postulate. (Einstein 1905)
> > This means that space and time must be measured in such a way
> > that local Lorentz invariance holds.
> > If you measure something else, that only means
> > that you have set up your measurements
> > in a way that is somehow wrong.
>
> That's right; this is an a priori, this is just one of the
> consequences of your madness - GPS and other
> corrected clocks are wrong. W-R-O-N-G. "Somehow".
>
> Your idiot guru had indeed a really good reason to ban
> common sense from your moronic physics.

What part of LOCAl don't you understand?

Jan

On Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 13:08:23 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 11:00:13 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 09:30:33 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Nothing to do with PTB in particular.
> > > > > Relativistic corrections have been applied routinely
> > > >
> > > > That's of course, a pathetic lie, as expected from relativistic
> > > > scum. You've written yourself, not so long ago, according to
> > > > your religion and its Holiest Postulate corrected clocks are
> > > > wrong, and that's the REAL approach of The Shit to these
> > > > corrections.
> > > Message-ID please?
> >
> > Quoting:
> > > There is nothing to prove, it is an a-priori.
> > > Space-time has local Lorentz invariance by postulate. (Einstein 1905)
> > > This means that space and time must be measured in such a way
> > > that local Lorentz invariance holds.
> > > If you measure something else, that only means
> > > that you have set up your measurements
> > > in a way that is somehow wrong.
> >
> > That's right; this is an a priori, this is just one of the
> > consequences of your madness - GPS and other
> > corrected clocks are wrong. W-R-O-N-G. "Somehow".
> >
> > Your idiot guru had indeed a really good reason to ban
> > common sense from your moronic physics.
> What part of LOCAl don't you understand?

None. So, do GPS (for instance) clocks measure
time in such a way that local invariance holds?
Or are they "somehow wrong", poor halfbrain?

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 11:04:48 PM UTC-7, village imbecile Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:32:59 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 9:38:33 PM UTC-7, utter cretin Richard Hertz kept eating shit:
> > > On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 10:20:48 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 3:41:28 PM UTC-7, utter cretin Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Adapting to 2022 notation the 1911 formula:
> > > > >
> > > > > Δf/f = g.Δh/c²
> > > > >
> > > > > And, following PTB terms:
> > > > >
> > > > > g.Δh = c² (Δf/f)
> > >
> > >
> > > > Dick,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You need to stop blaming GR for your cretinism. This is not how the scientists used GR, "g" never comes into play. I will not tell tell you how it was done because keeping you basking in your imbecility is what make you so entertaining. I will just give you a hint: you need to start with the Schwarzschild solution. I noticed that as of late, keeping in line with you being THE odious kapo, you started disparaging Schwarzschild as well.
> > > Listen Gono, I told you one thousand times that what your cretin pagan God wrote this in 1911, and is embedded (almost unaltered) on
> > > the Hilbert-Schwarzschild solution
> > No, it's not, keep eating shit, Dick. There is no "g" in the Schwarzschild solution.
> I wrote the cretinism ON PURPOSE, since I am a fucking senile dement!
>

Yep, you sure are which is what makes you so entertaining , Dick. Every time you open your big mouth I get to fill it with shit. Now swallow.

On Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 15:20:02 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 11:04:48 PM UTC-7, village imbecile Richard Hertz wrote:
> > I wrote the cretinism ON PURPOSE, since I am a fucking senile dement!

No, RH didn't write it. Poor idiot Dono is impudently
lying, as expected from relativistic scum.

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:30:34 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 3:41:28 PM UTC-7, utter cretin Richard Hertz:
> >
> > > Adapting to 2022 notation the 1911 formula:
> > >
> > > ?f/f = g.?h/c?
> > >
> > > And, following PTB terms:
> > >
> > > g.?h = c? (?f/f)
> >
> > You need to stop blaming GR for your cretinism. This is not how the
> > scientists used GR, "g" never comes into play. I will not tell tell you
> > how it was done because keeping you basking in your imbecility is what
> > make you so entertaining. I will just give you a hint: you need to start
> > with the Schwarzschild solution. I noticed that as of late, keeping in
> > line with you being THE odious kapo, you started disparaging Schwarzschild
> > as well.
> Yes, that's fine for the two body problem.
.....which is fine for the exercise at hand. You do not need the extended solution.

On 5/4/2022 11:27 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 May 2022 at 22:09:35 UTC+2, whodat wrote:
>> On 5/4/2022 10:24 AM, whodat wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2022 2:54 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 4 May 2022 at 09:34:55 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that Bodkin is having a nervous breakdown by now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He can't fulfill his quota of 20-30 posts a day, since 2014. Also
>>>>>> Moroney,
>>>>>> Python and many others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who's going to defend relativity, science and Einstein now?
>>>>> Why defending?
>>>>
>>>> Because that's what your insane Shit has trained you
>>>> for, poor halfbrain.
>>>
>>> Actually relativity needs no defense because it functions as intended
>>> and nobody has been able to replace it.
>>>
>>>>> This group exists for amusement,
>>>>
>>>> :)))))
>>>
>>> Yes indeed, I get a good laugh now and again.
>> I received several replies that I choose not to reply to directly.
>>
>> They all had the same thing to say--
>>
>> Waaaaah Waaaaah Waaaaah
>
> Stop fucking, poor trash. You're simply unable for
> anything but barking and insulting, just as expected
> from a relativistic idiot.

I've been watching for the longest time for some (any) contribution
advancing science from you. All I've seen so far is:

Waaaaah Waaaaah Waaaaah

On Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 18:17:06 UTC+2, whodat wrote:
> On 5/4/2022 11:27 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 4 May 2022 at 22:09:35 UTC+2, whodat wrote:
> >> On 5/4/2022 10:24 AM, whodat wrote:
> >>> On 5/4/2022 2:54 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, 4 May 2022 at 09:34:55 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I think that Bodkin is having a nervous breakdown by now.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> He can't fulfill his quota of 20-30 posts a day, since 2014. Also
> >>>>>> Moroney,
> >>>>>> Python and many others.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Who's going to defend relativity, science and Einstein now?
> >>>>> Why defending?
> >>>>
> >>>> Because that's what your insane Shit has trained you
> >>>> for, poor halfbrain.
> >>>
> >>> Actually relativity needs no defense because it functions as intended
> >>> and nobody has been able to replace it.
> >>>
> >>>>> This group exists for amusement,
> >>>>
> >>>> :)))))
> >>>
> >>> Yes indeed, I get a good laugh now and again.
> >> I received several replies that I choose not to reply to directly.
> >>
> >> They all had the same thing to say--
> >>
> >> Waaaaah Waaaaah Waaaaah
> >
> > Stop fucking, poor trash. You're simply unable for
> > anything but barking and insulting, just as expected
> > from a relativistic idiot.
> I've been watching for the longest time for some (any) contribution
> advancing science from you. All I've seen so far is:
>
> Waaaaah Waaaaah Waaaaah

I've been watching for the longest time for some (any) contribution
advancing science from you. All I've seen so far is:
Waaaaah Waaaaah Waaaaah
See, poor halfbrain? It's easy, anyone can write something alike.
You're simply unable for anything but barking and insulting,
just as expected from a relativistic idiot.