Den 25.09.2024 00:25, skrev rhertz:

The most evident proof about that relativity is a PSEUDOSCIENCE is the infamous "twin paradox", which occupied time and words of (otherwise)
bright minds exposed to relativism since 1910.

But the awful truth is that SR Lorentz equations are symmetrical, and
that the heart of SR is that any reference frame can be chosen at will.
So, the result is that each traveler will PERCEIVE that the other has
aged.

So you can claim what the Lorentz transform predicts for
the twin paradox, but can you apply the Lorentz transform to prove
that you are right?

Consider the following thought experiment:
Given an inertial frame K with coordinates [t, x]. (y = z = 0)
Twin A stays stationary at x = 0 in K, while twin B starts from
x = 0 when A’s clock shows 0 and travels at the constant speed v
to x = L, where she turns abruptly around with a brief, very high
acceleration for a very short time, and thereafter travels back
to x = 0 at the constant speed v.
She is back at the time T as measured in K.
Since twin A is stationary in K, her proper time when twin B is
back will be τA = T.

If K'[t',x'] is moving along the positive x axis of K[]
The Lorentz transform is:
t' = γ(t - (v/c²)x)
x' = γ(x - vt)
inverse:
t = γ(t' + (v/c²)x')
x = γ(x' + vt')

γ = √(1 − v²/c²)


The challenge is:
Show what the LT predicts the proper time of B
is perceived to be τB = T.

You are free to use as many frames of reference you might wish.

Of course I know that you are unable to meet the challenge.
You won't even try.

It is much easier to claim that SR is inconsistent,
than it is to prove it.

Isn't it? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 25/09/2024 à 13:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 25.09.2024 00:25, skrev rhertz:

The most evident proof about that relativity is a PSEUDOSCIENCE is the
infamous "twin paradox", which occupied time and words of (otherwise)
bright minds exposed to relativism since 1910.

This is not a pseudo-science, it is an absolutely correct science.
It is simply extremely poorly explained by relativistic physicists and mathematicians, who do not understand anything about it at all and only
pose equations that are half true and half false.

To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax) is true.

D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) is false.

The contraction of distances is totally inappropriate.
They think (and I never understood how they can make such a mistake as the
bad contraction of distances observed by a neutral observer of Stella's
frame of reference, that is to say at an equal distance from the elements
of the entire inertial universe of Terrence) that it is equal to D'=D.sqrt(1-v²/c²) .
This is not the contraction observed by Stella, and the 12 ly do not
transform into 7.2 ly FOR HER.
We must use the equation D'=D.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
We then see that if µ is different from 0 the result is mind-blowing.
However, Stella does not move transversely (or rather the earth
transversely in relation to her), but longitudinally.
We have cosµ=1 on the way out and cosµ=-1 on the way back.
If we forget this simple and logical geometry, everything enters into mathematical horror, and no one understands anything anymore.
It even becomes impossible to explain how Stella can see the earth moving
away at 0.4444c on the way out, then come back to it at 4c on the way
back, in a journey that will last twice 9 years of her own time.

This is not a pseudo-science, it is an absolutely correct science.
It is simply extremely poorly explained by relativistic physicists and mathematicians, who do not understand anything about it at all and only
pose equations that are half true and half false.

All sprinkled with an immense sense of arrogance.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 25/09/2024 à 13:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

It is much easier to claim that SR is inconsistent,
than it is to prove it.

Paul, don't you think this joke (Minkowski space-time) has gone on long
enough?

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 25.09.2024 17:59, skrev rhertz:

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

So you can claim what the Lorentz transform predicts for
the twin paradox, but can you apply the Lorentz transform to prove
that you are right?

Consider the following thought experiment:
Given an inertial frame K with coordinates [t, x]. (y = z = 0)
Twin A stays stationary at x = 0 in K, while twin B starts from
x = 0 when A’s clock shows 0 and travels at the constant speed v
to x = L, where she turns abruptly around with a brief, very high acceleration for a very short time, and thereafter travels back
to x = 0 at the constant speed v.
She is back at the time T as measured in K.
Since twin A is stationary in K, her proper time when twin B is
back will be τA = T.

If K'[t',x'] is moving along the positive x axis of K[]
The Lorentz transform is:
t' = γ(t - (v/c²)x)
x' = γ(x - vt)
inverse:
t = γ(t' + (v/c²)x')
x = γ(x' + vt')

γ = √(1 − v²/c²)


The challenge is:
Show what the LT predicts the proper time of B
is perceived to be τB = T.

You are free to use as many frames of reference you might wish.

SIMPLY PUT:

You have TWO reference frames (E and E'), which have a DIFFERENTIAL
SPEED OF v. For SR, as it was installed since 1906, the COMMON SPEED of
both frames IS IRRELEVANT (it could be 1,500 times v).

You have TWO imaginary observers at E and E' origins, pretending that
they are 100% human biological entities.

Relativism SAYS that there is TIME DILATION WITH INERTIAL MOTION, and
the choice of any reference frames is IRRELEVANT.

Quite. Time dilation between two inertial human biological entities.

(Note that "inertial" means that the proper acceleration is zero.
It does NOT mean "not moving".)

CHOICE ONE: You select E as the frame AT RELATIVE REST compared with E', which is moving far away at speed v. THEN, the humanoid at E PERCEIVES
that the REMOTE TIME for the other humanoid at E' is RUNNING SLOWER THAN
HIS. So, the humanoid at E BELIEVES that the bastard at E' IS AGING MORE SLOWLY THAN HIM.

A bit awkward put, but OK. (REMOTE TIME?)

E is stationary in an inertial frame.
This is easy to show with the LT.
YOU can't show it, but you have heard of time dilation.

CHOICE TWO: Adopt E' as being at RELATIVE REST. Then it's E the frame
that is moving away at !v! speed. Relativists claim that TIME DILATION
is going ON over the frame E, and now is the humanoid at E' who says: I PERCEIVE that time at E is running slower than mine, so the bastard at E
is AGING SLOWER THAN ME!

OK. E' is stationary in an inertial frame.
This is easy to show with the LT.
YOU can't show it, but you have heard of time dilation.

You have now told what you have heard about mutual time dilation
between E and E' while they both are inertial.

Here you can see how this is calculated with the LT: https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

The PARADOX, explained without using ANY STUPID FORMULA, is that both humanoids PERCEIVE THAT THE OTHER IS AGING SLOWER.

Quite.
But both are ageing equally fast, so where is the paradox?


Are you giving up?

The issue is the "twin paradox".

So far you haven't addressed it!

Have you realised that the E and E' can't come back together if
they both are inertial?


May I remind you:

| Den 25.09.2024 00:25, skrev rhertz:

The most evident proof about that relativity is a PSEUDOSCIENCE is the infamous "twin paradox", which occupied time and words of (otherwise)
bright minds exposed to relativism since 1910.

But the awful truth is that SR Lorentz equations are symmetrical, and
that the heart of SR is that any reference frame can be chosen at will.
So, the result is that each traveler will PERCEIVE that the other has
aged.

You claimed that the result of the "STUPID FORMULA" Lorentz transform
applied on the "twin paradox" was that each traveller will PERCEIVE that
the other has aged less than himself. Or was it opposite?
Will each traveller PERCEIVE that the other has aged more than himself?

I am looking forward to see how you will bring E and E' back together.

You will have to use the "STUPID FORMULA" to prove
that the "STUPID FORMULA" predicts what you claim it predicts.


Of course I know that you are unable to meet the challenge.

It is much easier to claim that SR is inconsistent,
than it is to prove it.

Isn't it? 😂

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 25.09.2024 18:39, skrev rhertz:

As you, viking relativity warrior, are very prone to spit numbers and
simple equations, that you repeat and reuse like a parrot, I address you
to ANALYZE AND JUSTIFY this part of the Hafele paper:

********************************************************************** PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS OF PORTABLE CLOCKS IN AIRCRAFT
by J.C. Hafele

https://www.masterclock.com/cmss_files/attachmentlibrary/Archived-papers/Performance-and-Results-of-Portable-Clocks-in-Aircraft-1971.pdf
*********************************************************************

Go to Page 8 (part of it I quote):

------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the assumption of an
equatorial circumnavigation at constant ground speed and altitude is not essential, it does simplify somewhat the calculations for estimating the magnitude of expected relativistic effects. For an equatorial circumna igation with constant ground speed v (m/sec) and altitude h (m), the predicted relativistic time gain for the flying clock over a similar reference clock kept at "rest" on the Earth's surface is given by

τ - τ₀ = [gh/c²-( 2RΩv + v²) /2c² ] τ₀ (1)

where τ and τ₀ are the respective times recorded by the flying and
ground clocks; R (m) is the Earth's radius and Ω (rad/sec) its angular speed; g (m/sec²) is the surface value of the acceleration of gravity;
and c (m/sec) is the speed of light. In Equation 1, the GROUND SPEED is positive for eastward and negative for westward circumnavigations. ------------------------------------------------------------------

PAY ATTENTION TO THE "GROUND SPEED" OF EARTH. THERE IS NO PLACE FOR THE
SPEED OF THE PLANES!!

"GROUND SPEED" OF EARTH ??? What may that be?

Your ability to read a text and misinterpret what you read never cease
to amaze! (And amuse! :-D )

v is the ground speed of the aeroplane.
RΩ is the speed of the clocks at USNO in the ECI-frame.

Now, I quote this SHAMEFUL ASSERTION OF HAFELE:

----------------------------------------------------------

The actual time gain Δτ is a bit more instructive than the time
ratio of Equation 1 and it follows from multiplication of Equation 1 by τ₀. Because standard clocks keep the same time while sitting on the
ground anywhere on Earth (at average sea level and to this order of approximation), only the actual time in flight during a trip contributes
to relativistic effects.

However, ground time does contribute to increasing the random,
unpredictable time offset and therefore to the threshold for detection
of relativistic effects.
(Relativistic effects were not detected during previous flying clock
trips because they accumulate only while the clocks are in flight, and
for those trips most of the time was spent on the ground.) Suppose for
the moment that ground time, for example, for refueling stops, is
negligibly small compared with the time it takes to fly around the
world. Then the time recorded by the ground clock during the
circumnavigation is given by

τ₀ = 2πR/|v|

Solving for Δτ and inserting this value for τ₀ in Equation 1 gives

Δτ = 2πRgh/(!v!c²)- 2πR² Ωv/(!v!c²) - πR !v!/2c²

Figure 1 is a graph of this equation showing Δτ versus v for altitudes
of O, 10, and 20 kilometers.

----------------------------------------------------------

And what is your problem?

(See attached Figure 1)

Now, Paul, take the time to EXTRACT the value of !v! from the cryptic reasoning of Hafele. ALSO, try to calculate HOW IN HELL Hafele derived a value for τ₀, IF SUCH DATA WAS AVAILABLE ONLY AT USNO (Washington).

Don't be ridiculous.
The start of the trip was when the four clocks were compared to
MEAN(USNO) for the last time before the trip,
The end of the trip was when the four clocks were compared to
MEAN(USNO) for the first time after the trip.
τ₀ is the duration of the trip measured by MEN(USNO).
See fig2.

The length of the trip is 2πR, so the average speed of the aeroplane is:
|v| = 2πR/τ₀

and τ₀ = 2πR/|v|

SEE IF YOU CAN REACH THESE VALUES (I DARE YOU), AND JUSTIFY THEM!!!

τ₀ = 7071.48 ± 691.78 nsec

τ₀ = 65.42 hours for Eastward trip.

|v| = -1753.188 ± 81.659 m/sec

|v| = 2πR/τ₀ = 170.16 m/s = 612.58 km/h

THEN, AND ONLY THEN, TELL ME THAT THE ENTIRE EXPERIMENT IS NOT A FRAUD!

GROUND SPEED! WHAT PAIR OF CRETINS, PLUS ACCOMPLISHES!

AND YOU DARE TO DEFEND THIS EXPERIMENT AND THE RESULTS??

DO THE MATH, RELATIVIST, AND TELL ME I'M WRONG AND YOU'RE RIGHT!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Yes yes yes with wohls on and lots of cheer.

Hurrah!

May such sense dawn on all as the kindly morning rays of the Sun.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 25.09.2024 23:54, skrev rhertz:

Paul. you are PROJECTING. And as a good cornered relativist, try to
divert the attention with something else, EXCEPT what I questioned.

I put these simple calculations for you TO LEARN, but I sincerely doubt
that you may go the first lines WITHOUT CRYING FOUL, like a little girl.

***************************************************************
THEORETICAL TOTAL EASTWARD FLIGHT: -40  ± 23
MEASURED TOTAL EASTWARD FLIGHT: -59  ± 10
NOTE: Starting 4 October 1971, eastward flights lasted 65 hours, with 41 accumulated hours of flight.

FOR EASTWARD FLIGHT, CALCULATIONS:

You yet again demonstrates your ability to read a text and
misinterpret what you read.

https://www.masterclock.com/cmss_files/attachmentlibrary/Archived-papers/Performance-and-Results-of-Portable-Clocks-in-Aircraft-1971.pdf

On the top of page 268:

"Although the assumption of an equatorial circumnavigation at
constant ground speed and altitude is not essential, it does
simplify somewhat the calculations for estimating the magnitude
of expected relativistic effects.
For an equatorial circumnavigation with constant ground speed v
(m/sec) and altitude h (m), the predicted relativistic time gain
for the flying clock over a similar reference clock kept at "rest"
on the Earth's surface is given by:" see equation (1)

kinematic term: τₖ = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀
Eastward trip:
τ₀ = 65.42 hours |v| = 2πR/τ₀ = 170.16 m/s = 612.58 km/h
v = +170.16 m/s
τₖ = -245.32 ns


If you insert τ₀ = 2πR/|v| in (1), the result is obviously the same.

Your giant blunder:
Not recognising that this is a very simplified example with
"equatorial circumnavigation at constant ground speed and altitude".
for estimating the magnitude of expected relativistic effects."

(-245 ns is of the same order of magnitude as -184 ns)

How could you imagine that this was the equation to calculate
the kinetic terms from all the flights?

τ - τ₀ = - τ₀ (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = - 2πR/|v| (2RΩv + v²)/2c² =  -184  ± 18

No. That formula will never give that result.

https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf

The Kinematic effect for the Eastward trip = -184±18 ns
is given in the introduction to the paper.

This value is obviously the final result when all the flights
in different direction and with different speeds are taken
into consideration.

READ THE PAPER PROPERLY!

<snip nonsense>

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 26.09.2024 18:04, skrev rhertz:

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 25.09.2024 23:54, skrev rhertz:

THEORETICAL TOTAL EASTWARD FLIGHT: -40 ± 23
MEASURED TOTAL EASTWARD FLIGHT: -59 ± 10
NOTE: Starting 4 October 1971, eastward flights lasted 65 hours,
with 41 accumulated hours of flight.


FOR EASTWARD FLIGHT, CALCULATIONS:

τ - τ₀ = - τ₀(2RΩv + v²)/2c² = - 2πR/|v| (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = -184±18
τ - τ₀ = - 2πR/|v| (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = -πR/c² (2RΩ + |v|) = -184±18

You yet again demonstrates your ability to read a text and
misinterpret what you read.

https://www.masterclock.com/cmss_files/attachmentlibrary/Archived-papers/Performance-and-Results-of-Portable-Clocks-in-Aircraft-1971.pdf

On the top of page 268:

"Although the assumption of an equatorial circumnavigation at
constant ground speed and altitude is not essential, it does
simplify somewhat the calculations for estimating the magnitude
of expected relativistic effects.
For an equatorial circumnavigation with constant ground speed v
(m/sec) and altitude h (m), the predicted relativistic time gain
for the flying clock over a similar reference clock kept at "rest"
on the Earth's surface is given by:" see equation (1)

Paul, I quote this SHAMEFUL part of your post. You are becoming
a disgraceful LIAR and DECEIVER, as it correspond to a relativist.

kinematic term: τₖ = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀
Eastward trip:
τ₀ = 65.42 hours |v| = 2πR/τ₀ = 170.16 m/s = 612.58 km/h
v = +170.16 m/s
τₖ = -245.32 ns


If you insert τ₀ = 2πR/|v| in (1), the result is obviously the same.

Your giant blunder:
Not recognising that this is a very simplified example with
"equatorial circumnavigation at constant ground speed and altitude".
for estimating the magnitude of expected relativistic effects."

(-245 ns is of the same order of magnitude as -184 ns)

How could you imagine that this was the equation to calculate
the kinetic terms from all the flights?

THE CORRECT FORMULA, FROM THE HAFELE PAPER, IS:

kinematic term: (τ - τ₀) = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀

But it isn't (τ - τ₀) because it is only the kinematic term.
That's why I wrote τₖ. But Δτₖ would possibly be better.

So: Δτₖ = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀

But thanks for pointing out that my formula was THE CORRECT FORMULA
for an equatorial circumnavigation with constant ground speed v.

where τ₀ is the USNO ELAPSED TIME after the eastward round trip.
This is a GROSS estimation, which gives
τ₀ = 65.42 hours = 235,512,000,000,000 theoretical nanoseconds
elapsed at USNO clocks!

Thanks again for pointing out the bleeding obvious.
The USNO clocks have advanced τ₀ = 235,512,000,000,000 ns
during the 65.42 hours trip.

You are sharp today, Richard! :-D

You CAN´T (unless you are a fraudster) to calculate a theoretical USNO elapsed time of 235.51E+12 nsec (out of thin air), and ESTIMATE a
difference of 245 nsec between USNO and "flying clocks".
This represents a fraction of about 1,000,000,000,000 parts between
both clocks, and calculated for trips around the Equator.

The USNO clocks advances τ₀ = 65.42 hours during the 65.42 hours trip,
but I CAN'T (unless I am a fraudster) calculate a theoretical USNO
elapsed time of 235.51E+12 nsec (out of thin air).

And I can't put the values:
τ₀ = 65.42 h = 235512 s = 235.512E+12 ns
R = 6378137 m
Ω = 7.2921159e-5 rad/s
c = 299792458 m/s
v = 2πR/τ₀ = +170.16 m/s

into THE CORRECT FORMULA Δτₖ = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀
and get Δτₖ = -245.32 ns.

This is the kinematic term, so it is only part of the difference
between the USNO clock and the "flying" clock.

But can you please explain why doing what I did made me a fraudster?

Of course that, if you are a CROOK used to hack and cook, are used to
LIE and DECEIVE, and have a bunch of people that support your SCAM,
then you can produce an HOAX like this one.

Are you frustrated about something, Richard?
Do you have a bad toothache?

Your emphasis in supporting this entire FARCE shows your true colors.
You are not different from these people or others who committed fraud
in widely published "experiments", like Gravity Probe A, Pound-Rebka,
Cassini and so many others.

Shame on you, as you don't have a bit of it.

Of course we know that all physicists born after 1900 are
members of a MAFFIA, and profit from it. This is because
the different results are COOKED with the help of statistical
manipulations, fraud, cooking and peer complicity.

But I am not a physicist, so why am I a fraud?
Is it because I several times have pointed out your errors?

BTW, her is yet another error of yours:

τ - τ₀ = - τ₀ (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = - 2πR/|v| (2RΩv + v²)/2c² = -184±18

No. That formula will never give that result.

https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf

The Kinematic effect for the Eastward trip = -184±18 ns
is given in the introduction to the paper.

This value is obviously the final result when all the flights
in different direction and with different speeds are taken
into consideration.

READ THE PAPER PROPERLY!

From whence did you get the stupid idea that the equation
Δτₖ = - τ₀ (2RΩv + v²)/2c² for an equatorial circumnavigation
at the constant ground speed v = +170.16 m/s would give
Δτₖ = -184±18 ns ?


--
Paul, having fun

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 27.09.2024 22:13, skrev rhertz:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 11:53:42 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 27.09.2024 02:47, skrev rhertz:

Final remarks about why I believe that Paul is a fraudster. Actually, I
think that you are much more stupid than fraudulent.

<snip all the text that you REPEATED from my post>

So I will have repeat the text which was NOT repeated
from your post.


https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
top of page 268:
"For an equatorial circumnavigation with constant ground speed v (m/s)
and altitude h(m), the predicted relativistic time gain for the flying
clock over a similar reference clock kept at "rest" on the Earth's
surface is given by:

Δτ/τ₀ = (τ - τ₀)/τ₀ = gh/c² - (2RΩv + v²)/2c² (1)

where τ and τ₀ are the respective times recorded by the flying
and ground clocks; R (m) is the Earth's radius and Ω (rad/s) its
angular speed; g(m/s²) is the surface value of the acceleration
of gravity; and c(m/sec) is the speed of light.
In Equation 1, the ground speed is positive for eastward and
negative for westward circumnavigations."

Note that the point with this equation (with constant speed at equator)
is "for estimating the magnitude of expected relativistic effects."

It was obviously not this equation (with constant speed and altitude)
that was used for the calculation of the prediction for all the flights.

-----

If an aeroplane is flying once around the Earth along equator
with a constant ground speed and altitude, and the duration of
the trip is 65.42 hours as measured by UTC clocks which are
stationary on the ground at the geoid, then the kinematic term
of equation (1) will give the following result:

Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

The USNO clocks advances τ₀ = 65.42 hours during the 65.42 hours trip, >>>>
I put the values:
τ₀ = 65.42 h = 235512 s
R = 6378137 m
Ω = 7.2921159e-5 rad/s
c = 299792458 m/s
v = 2πR/τ₀ = +170.16 m/s

into THE FORMULA  Δτₖ = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀
and get Δτₖ = -245.32 ns.


This is the kinematic term, so it is only part of the difference
between the USNO clock and the "flying" clock.


But can you please explain why doing what I did made me a fraudster?

It is obviously idiotic to say that to put numbers
into this theoretical flight is fraudulent.

-----------------------

Your real blunder is to insist that that H&K used equation (1)
to calculate the predictions for the trips. They did not.

https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
I quote from page 271:
"Commercial around-the-world flights do not, of course,
maintain constant altitude, latitude, or ground speed.
In this case, it is necessary to perform a numerical integration
of the relativistic equations. The necessary calculation is given by

Δτ = ∫ [gh(τ)/c² - (2RΩ⋅cosλ(τ)⋅cosθ(τ)⋅v(τ) + v²(τ))/2c²]dτ (2)

where, for each interval of the summation, λ is the latitude, θ is
the azimuth or bearing of the plane's velocity relative to east,
and the rest of the symbols have the same meaning as for Equation (1)
(v is the unsigned magnitude of the ground speed in Equation 2;
the azimuth θ accounts for the direction).
"

The eastward trip consisted of 14 flights, and equation (2)
was used for all the flights. When the the clocks were stationary
on the ground Δτ didn't change.

I´LL REPEAT ONE MORE TIME:

YOU CAN'T, UNDER ANY DECENT ASSUMPTION, DARE TO ESTIMATE WHAT WAS THE
ELAPSED TIME AT THE USNO CLOCKS IN WASHINGTON, IF YOU ARE 15,000 MILES
FAR AWAY AND HAVE NOT ANY MEANS (NOT EVEN AS OF TODAY) TO ESTIMATE THE
TIME VALUE OF SUCH REFERENCE CLOCK.

Yes, you can ESTIMATE WHAT IS THE TIME AT THE USNO CLOCKS
IN WASHINGTON, IF YOU ARE 15,000 MILES FAR AWAY.
I keep my wristwatch to within 1 second from UTC +2h, so I can at
any time estimate the time at the USNO clocks within 1 second.

Remember that all clocks showing UTC+n hours are synchronous
in the ECI-frame, even if the precision will vary.

WHEN YOU ASSUME THAT IT'S CORRECT TO ESTIMATE SUCH ELAPSED TIME AS THE
REMOTE FLIGHT TIME PLUS TIME SPENT AT AIRPORTS (65.42 HOURS), YOU ARE
BEYOND CRETINISM, BECAUSE OVER THAT RESULT YOU DARE TO ESTIMATE A 200
NSEC DIFFERENCE WITH THE HAFELE'S CLOCKS.

For estimating the _prediction_ H&K used equation (2) for each flight.
The τ in the equation is the time shown by 'ordinary' clocks on
airport and in planes. When the clocks were stationary on the ground
Δτ didn't change and nothing had to be done.

The point is that the measurement of the duration of each flight
isn't critical, and does not have to be done by an atomic clock.
There are many other parameters (speed,heights etc.) which
are less well known than the time.

In our theoretical flight above, 1 second error in τ₀ would
only give 1 ps error in Δτₖ. So 1 second precision in τ₀
would give Δτₖ = -245.323 ± 0.001 ns

But when H&K _measured_ Δτ the trips were timed with the clocks
at USNO. The start of the trip was when the 4 clocks for the last
time were compared to the USNO clocks before the trip,
the end of the trip was when the 4 clocks for the first time
were compared to the USNO clocks after the trip.
The Δτ was then the difference between the corrected time of
the four clocks and the USNO clock.

WHEN YOU ACCEPT THAT OVER A THEORETICAL VALUE OF 235,512,000,000,000
NSEC ELAPSED AT USNO CLOCKS (VALUE PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS),
THEORETICALLY CAN ESTIMATE A DIFFERENCE OF 200 NSEC, YOU ARE A LIAR, A DECEIVER AND A FRAUDSTER.

The _theoretical_ trip with constant speed along equator
lasts 65.42 hours per definition, and Δτₖ = -245.323 ns

CAPITO?

YOUR REPUTATION AS AN IMBECILE IS WRITTEN ALL OVER THE GOOGLE FORUM FOR
MORE THAN 20 YEARS. YOU CAN'T ESCAPE FROM SUCH HISTORY OF YOUR
ADVENTURES HERE. I DON'T KNOW HOW A FRAUDSTER FEEL ABOUT HIMSELF OR HOW
CAN HE LIVE WITH SUCH SHAME, BECAUSE I'M AN HONEST PERSON AND ALWAYS
HAVE BEEN. SOMETHING THAT YOUR PARENTS TEACH, BUT THEY FAILED ON YOU.

:-D

Richard, do you remember this blunder of yours?

Den 16.09.2024 18:32, skrev rhertz:

2) The satellite clock is PERCEIVED to be ticking slower (from the
Earth's ground) by a factor: Δf/f = Φ/c² = GMe/c² (1/Re - 1/Rs)
with respect to a TWIN CLOCK, located on the Earth's surface.

------------
Or this?

Den 15.09.2024 03:26, skrev rhertz:

As if the above IS NOT ENOUGH, exhaustive experiments done by France
since 2017 SHOWS (with error <10E-15) that THE EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE
BREAKS AT QUANTUM LEVEL.

As they wrote here:

https://www.oca.eu/en/news-lagrange/1363-first-results-from-microscope-satellite-confirm-albert-einstein-s-theory-of-relativity-with-unprecedented-precision

------------------
Or this?

Den 10.09.2024 07:42, skrev rhertz:

WHY THE ASSERTION ABOUT RELATIVITY BEING A PSEUDOSCIENCE? THE FOLLOWING
APPLY:

1) As the distance between both reference frames is increasing
constantly, the communication of data between both frames is IMPOSSIBLE
to exist while exchanging information about time and position of both
frames, even using light as a carrier of data. Both origins will be
always out of sync, even when ghost observers, located at both origins,
are trying to communicate between them.

----------------------
Or this?

Paul wrote:

GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of em-radiation
by the Sun, observed from the Earth, is:

θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ

Where:
AU= an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = Gravitational constant
M = solar mass

Richard responded.

Your formula, that you wrote with sheer cockiness claiming that it's
what GR predicts (false), contain an incredible amount of nonsense. Read
the Mikhailov´s paper, if you want to write meaningful statements

-----------------
Or this?

Den 27.09.2024 00:27, skrev rhertz:

Δf/f₀ = gh/c² - [(vˢᵃᵗ)²+ (rΩₑ)²]/2c² ----- Mudrak 2017

Δτ/τ₀ = gh/c² - (2RΩv + v²)/2c² ------------ Hafele 1971

Does it rings any bell on the void of your skull, or should I explain?

Who made a fraudulent approximation in GR using Schwarzschild?

NOW, GO AND HIDE IN SHAME FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS, UNTIL THIS FADES. IT'S
WHAT YOU'VE DONE ALL THESE YEARS, WHEN CAUGHT WITH YOUR LIES OR YOUR
STUPID COMMENTS.

Your well formulated arguments are as lethal as always!
Well done, Richard.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

Either being a physical or a thought experiment, since around 1910 every experiment to prove or explain relativity is either blatantly stupid or
is a fraud, based on deceptive narratives, data hacking and statistical manipulation plus complicity of the members of such despicable cult.

For the innocent kiddies who might have strayed in here:
Relativity, both special and general theory,
is long past the stage where demonstration experiments are relevant.

Like with any mature science,
much of it has passed into everyday engineering.
Much engineering requires high accuracies nowadays,
and to achieve these accuracies
relativistic corrections need to be taken into account.

Information networks are synchronised, satnav just works,
power grids can remain synchronised over continents,
shares are bought and sold in microseconds,
accelerators accelerate, star positions are measured
to micro-arcseconds, space probes get routinely navigated
through the whole solar system, and so on, and so on.
All of this would not be possible
without correctly taking relativistic time into acount.

So, just ignore the noises, except for amusement,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 01.10.2024 01:16, skrev rhertz:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 21:37:55 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

For the innocent kiddies who might have strayed in here:
Relativity, both special and general theory,
is long past the stage where demonstration experiments are relevant.

Like with any mature science,
much of it has passed into everyday engineering.
Much engineering requires high accuracies nowadays,
and to achieve these accuracies
relativistic corrections need to be taken into account.

Information networks are synchronised, satnav just works,
power grids can remain synchronised over continents,
shares are bought and sold in microseconds,
accelerators accelerate, star positions are measured
to micro-arcseconds, space probes get routinely navigated
through the whole solar system, and so on, and so on.
All of this would not be possible
without correctly taking relativistic time into acount.

So, just ignore the noises, except for amusement,

Jan

*************************************************************
Your patent ignorance and your level of indoctrination on relativity are shocking. Even more than that, are DISGUSTING in extreme levels.

Typical of a die hard relativist is to attribute every scientific
advance in physics and engineering to relativity. It can be taken well
among the members of your cult but, for critics of relativity such
actions generates laugh and, even more, a LOT OF PITY when contemplating
how ruined its judgment is.

EVERY SINGLE COMMENT YOU MADE, FALSELY ATTRIBUTING TO RELATIVITY
ADVANCES IN SCIENCE, MAKES ME FEEL BAD FOR YOU AND YOUR IGNORANCE.

1) Information networks are synchronised.

Information networks run over DIGITAL HIGHWAYS based on fiber optics, photonics and atomic clocks, which are the Level 1 of global information networks. Software for routing and information run SEVERAL LAYERS ABOVE. Digital communications progress IS UNRELATED TO RELATIVITY.

2) satnav just works.

Current GNSS are just an evolutionary step over different techniques
from the last 70 years. The impact of relativity on these networks IS
JUST A RELATIVISTIC MYTH.

3) power grids can remain synchronised over continents.

This is, ESSENTIALLY, due to every single country institution in charge
of keeping time with respect to BIPM, obtaining a sync level of +/- 10
nsec worldwide. This has been achieved thanks to 1) and GNSS, for distribution of signaling info, at the lowest level of processing.

https://www.bipm.org/en/

NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.

4) shares are bought and sold in microseconds.

Same as above (3). Computer networks are synchronized thousand of times
less tightly than digital communication networks, because SOFTWARE is a random process with random delays, which is not the case of digital
networks (Level 1). Just the use of routers introduces the first layer
of random delays. Software (Level 4+) introduces MORE random delays.
With PROPER ALGORITHMS, sync can be established at microsec levels.

NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.

5) accelerators accelerate.

?????????

6) star positions are measured to micro-arcseconds.

NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/ How_does_Gaia_study_the_Milky_Way

7) space probes get routinely navigated through the whole solar system.

ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.

NEWTON RULES EVERYWHERE ON SPATIAL NAVIGATION.

Well said, Richard.

Considering that all physicists born after 1900 are members of
a MAFFIA, and profit from it, and their experimental results are
COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations, fraud, cooking
and peer complicity, it is clear that NEWTON RULES.

Physics hasn't evolved at all for since 1900.

You can OBVIOUSLY design particle accelerators and Satellite navigation
systems and synchronise TAI-clocks with Newtonian mechanics only.

Right, Richard?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 26.09.2024 o 15:41, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog pisze:

Modern measurements greatly tighten the error bars.

At some level of measurement precision, it is expected that the
equivalence principle must eventually break down. So far it hasn't.

But in the meantime in the real world,
forbidden by religious maniacs like you
"improper" clocks keeps measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 01.10.2024 o 13:27, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:

Den 01.10.2024 01:16, skrev rhertz:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 21:37:55 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

For the innocent kiddies who might have strayed in here:
Relativity, both special and general theory,
is long past the stage where demonstration experiments are relevant.

Like with any mature science,
much of it has passed into everyday engineering.
Much engineering requires high accuracies nowadays,
and to achieve these accuracies
relativistic corrections need to be taken into account.

Information networks are synchronised, satnav just works,
power grids can remain synchronised over continents,
shares are bought and sold in microseconds,
accelerators accelerate, star positions are measured
to micro-arcseconds, space probes get routinely navigated
through the whole solar system, and so on, and so on.
All of this would not be possible
without correctly taking relativistic time into acount.

So, just ignore the noises, except for amusement,

Jan

*************************************************************
Your patent ignorance and your level of indoctrination on relativity are
shocking. Even more than that, are DISGUSTING in extreme levels.

Typical of a die hard relativist is to attribute every scientific
advance in physics and engineering to relativity. It can be taken well
among the members of your cult but, for critics of relativity such
actions generates laugh and, even more, a LOT OF PITY when contemplating
how ruined its judgment is.


EVERY SINGLE COMMENT YOU MADE, FALSELY ATTRIBUTING TO RELATIVITY
ADVANCES IN SCIENCE, MAKES ME FEEL BAD FOR YOU AND YOUR IGNORANCE.

1) Information networks are synchronised.

Information networks run over DIGITAL HIGHWAYS based on fiber optics,
photonics and atomic clocks, which are the Level 1 of global information
networks. Software for routing and information run SEVERAL LAYERS ABOVE.
Digital communications progress IS UNRELATED TO RELATIVITY.

2) satnav just works.

Current GNSS are just an evolutionary step over different techniques
from the last 70 years. The impact of relativity on these networks IS
JUST A RELATIVISTIC MYTH.

3) power grids can remain synchronised over continents.

This is, ESSENTIALLY, due to every single country institution in charge
of keeping time with respect to BIPM, obtaining a sync level of +/- 10
nsec worldwide. This has been achieved thanks to 1) and GNSS, for
distribution of signaling info, at the lowest level of processing.

https://www.bipm.org/en/

NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.


4) shares are bought and sold in microseconds.

Same as above (3). Computer networks are synchronized thousand of times
less tightly than digital communication networks, because SOFTWARE is a
random process with random delays, which is not the case of digital
networks (Level 1). Just the use of routers introduces the first layer
of random delays. Software (Level 4+) introduces MORE random delays.
With PROPER ALGORITHMS, sync can be established at microsec levels.

NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.


5) accelerators accelerate.

?????????

6) star positions are measured to micro-arcseconds.

NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/
How_does_Gaia_study_the_Milky_Way


7) space probes get routinely navigated through the whole solar system.

ABSOLUTELY FALSE.


NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.


NEWTON RULES EVERYWHERE ON SPATIAL NAVIGATION.

Well said, Richard.

Considering that all physicists born after 1900 are members of
a MAFFIA, and profit from it, and their experimental results are
COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations, fraud, cooking
and peer complicity, it is clear that NEWTON RULES.

Physics hasn't evolved at all for since 1900.

You can OBVIOUSLY design particle accelerators and Satellite navigation systems and synchronise TAI-clocks with Newtonian mechanics only.

Doesn't your moronic Shit forbid to
synchronize moving relatively clocks,
poor halfbrain?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 01/10/2024 à 23:57, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

Doesn't your moronic Shit forbid to
synchronize moving relatively clocks,

The great and only problem with the theory of relativity is that men
realized that there was a problem of relativity of time, but they never
clearly understood why.

They then came across Minkowski, who completely deviated Poincaré's
thinking, and humanity arrived at the understanding of the second degree
effect that is the Lorentz factor.

Without going, strangely enough, through the main cause, the first degree.

Then progressing in intellectual horror, they confused the notion of
relativity of clocks with relativity of chronotropy, taking the two
effects for the same thing.

The last horror came when Dr. Hachel tried to straighten the ship and reformulate a coherent theory without paradox (SR is full of them so I
wonder what it must be like in RG). We should have bowed down and said,
but who is this guy who speaks so well and whose equations are great?

Noooooot at all.

Arrogance has taken over.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 27.09.2024 02:47, skrev rhertz:

Final remarks about why I believe that Paul is a fraudster. Actually, I
think that you are much more stupid than fraudulent.

Let's add a little context first.

https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
top of page 268:
"For an equatorial circumnavigation with constant ground speed v (m/s)
and altitude h(m), the predicted relativistic time gain for the flying
clock over a similar reference clock kept at "rest" on the Earth's
surface is given by:

Δτ/τ₀ = (τ - τ₀)/τ₀ = gh/c² - (2RΩv + v²)/2c² (1)

where r and To are the respective times recorded by the flying
and ground clocks; R (m) is the Earth's radius and Ω (rad/s) its
angular speed; g(m/s²) is the surface value of the acceleration
of gravity; and c(m/sec) is the speed of light.
In Equation 1, the ground speed is positive for eastward and
negative for westward circumnavigations."

Note that the point with this equation (with constant speed at equator)
is "for estimating the magnitude of expected relativistic effects."

It was obviously not this equation (with constant speed and altitude)
that was used for the calculation of all the flights.


The kinematic term is: Δτₖ

I'll explain, but first I extracted some gems from your post:

The gem:

Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

The USNO clocks advances τ₀ = 65.42 hours during the 65.42 hours trip,

I put the values:
τ₀ = 65.42 h = 235512 s
R = 6378137 m
Ω = 7.2921159e-5 rad/s
c = 299792458 m/s
v = 2πR/τ₀ = +170.16 m/s

into THE FORMULA Δτₖ = (-(2RΩv + v²)/2c²)τ₀
and get Δτₖ = -245.32 ns.


This is the kinematic term, so it is only part of the difference
between the USNO clock and the "flying" clock.


But can you please explain why doing what I did made me a fraudster?

Here is Richard Hertz explanation:

1) The eastward flight lasted 65.42 hours, of which 42.23 hours were
spent on planes flying at about 9 Km high, on average.

Your STUPID and ILLOGICAL thinking is about having bought THIS CRAP:
Hafele considered a good approximation the following INSANE assertion:

- WE (H&K, plus the gang at USNO) considered A GOOD IDEA to think that
 a good approximation is:

 - Earth rotates at 459,24 m/sec (Equator level). We SUPPOSE that USNO
   labs are FLOATING IN THE AIR for the duration of our eastward trip.

 - So, in a stroke of a genius, we SUPPOSED that being still for
   65.42 hours (flight time + waiting in airports) at ALTITUDE 0.0 Km,
   we WOULD REACH USNO LABS while Earth rotates such amount (either 0°
   latitude or the average 34° latitude).

 - The only thing that we have to do is TO SIT COMFORTABLY, while Earth
   rotates, AND in 65.42 hours we will reach USNO AGAIN (because we
   departed from USNO, which MAGICALLY remained STILL IN SPACE, without
   ANY MOTION. We are, by the hand of Einstein, who slipped eastward,
   to finally reach USNO again.

 - The only uncomfortable aspect of such adventure is that OUR ASSES
   got wet, while moving over water at height ZERO, plus a lot of
   bruises in our asses while moving over earth, at h=0.

 - But all the pain suffered worth the sacrifice, as we COULD
   THEORETICALLY compute the elapsed time τ₀ = 65.42h = 235.512E+12 ns.

 - That such value, which we pulled out of our asses, contain errors
   in the order of BILLIONS OF PARTS is irrelevant, because we proved
   that Einstein was right.

I have no further comment to this gem! :-D

See, Paul, WHY YOU ARE A FRAUDSTER OR IMBECILE BEYOND REDEMPTION?

I go for an IMBECILE, A BLIND ONE. But that is just me.

Quite. That's indeed just Richard Hertz.


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 27.09.2024 00:27, skrev rhertz:

Paul, more beating on you. I feel bad.

1) Check AGAIN the Hafele's chart. from 1971. Use the red line for h=0.

2) Check out this comparison: Mudrak 2017 (Galileo) vs. Hafele 1971.

Feel ashamed or stupid. These are your only choices, old man.

************************************************************

Mudrak's 2017 formula for GNSS Galileo:

Δf/f₀ = -GMₑ/c²r - (-GMe/c²a (1 + J₂/2)) - (vˢᵃᵗ)²/2c² + (aΩₑ)²/2c²

J₂/2 = 0.0005413134 (DISCARDED FOR BEING << 1)

But to find Δf/f₀ with a precision 1E-14 you can't
ignore the quadrupole moment.

https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf

Δf/f₀ = -GMₑ/c² (1/r - 1/a) - 1/2c² [(vˢᵃᵗ)²+ (aΩₑ)²]

If a (satellite height) is only "h" times higher than r (i.e. 10 Km),
then

Δf/f₀ = gh/c² - [(vˢᵃᵗ)²+ (rΩₑ)²]/2c² ----- Mudrak 2017

Correcting typo:
Δf/f₀ = gh/c² - [(vˢᵃᵗ)² - (rΩₑ)²]/2c² ----- Mudrak 2017

Δτ/τ₀ = gh/c² - (2RΩv + v²)/2c² ------------ Hafele 1971

Does it rings any bell on the void of your skull, or should I explain?

You don't have to explain, I can guess what your blunder is:

You think the kinematic terms are different in the two equations.

Who made a fraudulent approximation in GR using Schwarzschild?

I'll cease to post on this thread, because I'm bored as hell with you.

I can understand why you are frustrated by being proven wrong again and
again.

And again:

See equation (12)in:
https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf

The kinematic term can be written: +(v₁² - v₂²)/2c²
where v₁ is the speed in the ECI frame of the clock on the ground.
and v₂ is the speed in the ECI frame of the moving object.

In Mudrak's case v₁ = rΩₑ and v₂ = vˢᵃᵗ, so obviously:

+(v₁² - v₂²)/2c² = - [(vˢᵃᵗ)² - (rΩₑ)²]/2c²

In Hafele's case it is not so obvious because v is the ground speed.
v is positive for the eastward trip and negative for the westward trip.

v₁ = RΩ and v₂ = RΩ + v

v₁²-v₂² = (RΩ)² - (RΩ + v)² = (RΩ)² -((RΩ)² + 2RΩv + v²) = -(2RΩv + v²)

+(v₁² - v₂²)/2c² = - (2RΩv + v²)/2c²

So the two equations are equal.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 21:37:55 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

Either being a physical or a thought experiment, since around 1910 every >> experiment to prove or explain relativity is either blatantly stupid or
is a fraud, based on deceptive narratives, data hacking and statistical
manipulation plus complicity of the members of such despicable cult.

For the innocent kiddies who might have strayed in here:
Relativity, both special and general theory,
is long past the stage where demonstration experiments are relevant.

Like with any mature science,
much of it has passed into everyday engineering.
Much engineering requires high accuracies nowadays,
and to achieve these accuracies
relativistic corrections need to be taken into account.

Information networks are synchronised, satnav just works,
power grids can remain synchronised over continents,
shares are bought and sold in microseconds,
accelerators accelerate, star positions are measured
to micro-arcseconds, space probes get routinely navigated
through the whole solar system, and so on, and so on.
All of this would not be possible
without correctly taking relativistic time into acount.

So, just ignore the noises, except for amusement,

Jan

*************************************************************
Your patent ignorance and your level of indoctrination on relativity are shocking. Even more than that, are DISGUSTING in extreme levels.

Typical of a die hard relativist is to attribute every scientific
advance in physics and engineering to relativity. It can be taken well
among the members of your cult but, for critics of relativity such
actions generates laugh and, even more, a LOT OF PITY when contemplating
how ruined its judgment is.

EVERY SINGLE COMMENT YOU MADE, FALSELY ATTRIBUTING TO RELATIVITY
ADVANCES IN SCIENCE, MAKES ME FEEL BAD FOR YOU AND YOUR IGNORANCE.

1) Information networks are synchronised.

Information networks run over DIGITAL HIGHWAYS based on fiber optics, photonics and atomic clocks, which are the Level 1 of global information networks. Software for routing and information run SEVERAL LAYERS ABOVE. Digital communications progress IS UNRELATED TO RELATIVITY.

Time division multiplexing requires accurate synchronisation.

2) satnav just works.

Current GNSS are just an evolutionary step over different techniques
from the last 70 years. The impact of relativity on these networks IS
JUST A RELATIVISTIC MYTH.

OK, in denial.

3) power grids can remain synchronised over continents.

This is, ESSENTIALLY, due to every single country institution in charge
of keeping time with respect to BIPM, obtaining a sync level of +/- 10
nsec worldwide. This has been achieved thanks to 1) and GNSS, for distribution of signaling info, at the lowest level of processing.

https://www.bipm.org/en/

NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.

The BIPM is tasked with maintaining TAI/UTC.
All timekeeping depends on it.
Relativistic correction have been taken into account in establishing it
for the past 50 years.

4) shares are bought and sold in microseconds.

Same as above (3). Computer networks are synchronized thousand of times
less tightly than digital communication networks, because SOFTWARE is a random process with random delays, which is not the case of digital
networks (Level 1). Just the use of routers introduces the first layer
of random delays. Software (Level 4+) introduces MORE random delays.
With PROPER ALGORITHMS, sync can be established at microsec levels.

NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.

It can't run without the underlying network synchronisation.

5) accelerators accelerate.

?????????

Go visit CERN. Ask them why their ring needs to be 30 kilometer wide.

6) star positions are measured to micro-arcseconds.

NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.

The atomic clock in GAIA needs to be kept track of
to know where it is pointing.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/How_does_Gaia_study

_the_Milky_Way

Not a word there about -how- GAIA does this measuring to that accuracy.
Look it up.

7) space probes get routinely navigated through the whole solar system.

ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

In denial again. Look up the Cassini mission for example,
or the Parker solar probe.
You really need all that accuracy to get those successive
planetary swings (aka gravity assists) just right.
(hint: each swing greatly amplifies any initial error)

NO RELATIVITY ROLE HERE.

NEWTON RULES EVERYWHERE ON SPATIAL NAVIGATION.

Not merely denial, this is complete ignorance.
Look up TCB for example. (Temps Coordonn�e Barycentrique)
The relativistic corrections to it amount to half a second/year,
in range of a very good quartz wrist watch,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)