bcd90071   
   XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: relativity@paulba.no   
      
   Den 02.11.2025 14:23, skrev Maciej Woźniak:   
   > On 11/2/2025 1:35 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:   
   >> Den 31.10.2025 16:19, skrev Maciej Woźniak:   
   >>> On 10/31/2025 2:48 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:   
   >>>> Den 31.10.2025 13:21, skrev Maciej Woźniak:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)   
   >>>>> so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day   
   >>>>> to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.   
   >>   
   >>>> Right.   
   >>   
   >>>>> I.e. where The Shit is predicting the measurement   
   >>>>> result of 86400s+37(afair)us, the real measurement   
   >>>>> result is 86400, with the precision of an acceptable   
   >>>>> error. Common sense has been warning your idiot guru.   
      
   >>>> Lets take this one step at the time:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 1. A clock on the ground which is running according to   
   >>>>     the SI definition will measure a mean solar day to   
   >>>>     last 86400 s.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 2. GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit which is running   
   >>>>     according to the SI definition will measure a mean solar   
   >>>>     day to last 86400⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s ≈ 86400s + 38.6 μs   
      
   >>   
   >> You wrote:of   
   >> "The Shit is predicting the measurement   
   >>   result of 86400s+37(afair)us"   
   >>   
   >> So we agree that this is what GR predicts.   
   >>   
      
   >>>> 3. When a clock in GPS orbit is adjusted to run slow   
   >>>>     by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10) compared to the SI-definition,   
   >>>>     then the clock will measure a mean solar day to last 86400 s.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Please explain why the real measurement in 3.   
   >>>> do not confirm SR's prediction in 2.   
      
   >>> And while SOME of Shit's predictions may fit   
   >>> the reality - others don't.   
      
   >> "SOME prediction" can only refer to the prediction   
   >> in point 2. above.   
   >>   
   >> Progress!   
   >> You have finally realised that point 3. above   
   >> confirms GR's prediction in point 2.   
      
      
   > No, trash, sorry. That it doesn't deny   
   > doesn't mean it confirms.   
      
   Too late to claim your words unsaid:   
   "Some shit's predictions may fit the reality"   
      
   If the predictions the shit GR fit the realty,   
   then the reality confirms the the shit GR.   
      
   >>   
   >> Well done! Seriously!   
   >>   
      
   > The Shit is predicting the 86400s+37(afair)us.   
      
   Exactly!   
      
   > The REAL measurement result is - 86400   
      
   ...when the clock is adjusted down by by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10),   
      
   Right again!   
      
      
   >> Can you name at least one example where a prediction   
   >> of GR is not in accordance with measurements?   
   >>   
   >> If you can, you will have falsified GR!   
      
   >   
   > Falsification is just a primitive   
   > wishful thinking of naive idiots like   
   > yourself.   
      
   So no idiots like myself have falsified GR.   
      
   Right again!   
      
   >> Of course GR has but one prediction for what   
   >> the clock will show.   
   And that prediction is what you so correctly stated:   
   "The Shit is predicting the measurement   
      result of 86400s+37(afair)us"   
   > And, unfortunately, it's bullshitty.   
      
   Quite.   
   Your formulation is a bit shitty, but the content is correct.   
      
   So you are right again!   
      
   You are really sharp today! :-D--   
   Paul, having fun   
      
   https://paulba.no/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)