usenet weirdness

It was a management screw up. The engineers had done their jobs and warned management, but management ignored them. It happens a lot.

And The S*it of Einstein is not predicting any errors. You know that perfectly, but being a piece of lying s*it you're not going to admit that.

It wouldn't work if it didn't.

I know that the way relativistic fanatics claim GPS system works is a lie.

A clock error is a very classical phenomenon, well known by Galileo, Newton and any 12 years old child of average intelligence, but not predictable for your idiot guru.

but the idiot has denied such need.

that has

The idiot has imagined I don't want it. And that if I wanted it it would be improper and violating his "laws of nature". That's the core of his revolution, that's why it looks so absurd, that's why common sense has been warning him. If you can't understand that, your reading comprehension is bad enough to call you an idiot you are.

Which is to say that you find it plausible. You find a lot of other nonsense equally plausible.

You couldn't even do the Google search.

I don't waste my time watching videos, least of all those offered up by conspiracy nut-cases.

The twin towers were steel-framed and steel burns to ferric oxide when it gets hot enough. The heat generated produced air currents which spread the oxide and any other dust particles around far and wide.

There was a lot of smoke around in the immediate aftermath of the fire and the collapse.

As fine dust.

They weren't cut into fine pieces, but rather incinerated into fine dust and blown away.

But wrong.

As you might expect if you neglected to think about what had actually happened.

Dust clouds are ephemeral. They blow away. They don't have to blow far away to avoid showing up in the basement.

Come on, trash, your spitting and slandering can't stand against my logic. Have some dignity and face it.

How fortunate that all you really can do is to kiss my ass (in a metaphor, of course, I certainly wouldn't let you do it for real).

Come on, trash, your spitting and slandering can't stand against my logic, no matter how fiercely you will bark. Have some dignity and face it.

Indeed. Any thread between two people that lasts for more than a few postings is best given up upon, usually. I tend to read those subtreads with a finger on the space bar.

You could have learned about the tides, for example,

Jan

My god, isn't there anything you can get right? Einstein did not work at Princeton Unversity. He was at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, which has no formal ties with the university.

The founders set it up precisely as a place for study, to free eminent scientists from the duties of university professors, such as lecturing, advising students, and attending meetings,

Jan

I did. The point about satellites that orbited faster than their primary rotated spiralling in and crashing (or at least breaking up) while satellite that orbited more slowly than primary rotated spiralled out and were eventually lost was entirely new to me, and I dug it out of the google searches that I did while I was concocting my responses.

I'm not sure that I entirely understand why it works that way, and I'm not interested enough to try and find out, but it was certainly an interesting bit of information.

Bizarre imagery, and rather repetitive. You are coming across as a remarkably dull crank.

Fierce barking, obvious for a fanatic idiot lacking any arguments.

Hanging out with psycholinguists has given me a level of insight that you are unlikely to be able to match. They don't know all that much about the human brain, but more than pretty much anybody else.

I'd be much more likely to kick it, and even more likely to make myself scarce if I got close enough to you for either action to be practicable. Your responses don't suggest that you would be congenial company.

You dug up his 1905 Special Relativity paper, which quite explicitly does. Are you illiterate as well as demented?

You are seriously out of touch with reality.

Knowing is a state of mind. If you think you "know" that, your mind is in very poor shape.

The whole point about relativity is that it dealt with moving clocks and they aren't "classical". Galileo and Newton didn't get to play with clocks that were all that accurate, and reliable marine chronometers weren't around until 1761.

Why would he have done that? What he asserted was that a clock that got moved around at any significant speed would need to be corrected to get it to agree with a stationary clock when the moving clock clock had been moved back to where it started

Ever heard of Occam's razor, poor trash? Well, other rules of good objective programming apply to science as well.

Do you want me to find the quote where you explicitly insist that what happens with the clocks there can't be considered as an error? See, stupid scum - you're too dumb to keep the consistency of your s***ty lies.

If you could, of course, they would be still absurd. You've got a link to the text of your SR s*it. Show me where the idiot is writing/predicting "the clock of the observer X is erroneous and will require a correction". Or anything alike. Will you? No, you won't. You will just bark fiercely.

You didn't admit - exactly as I predicted, trash.

It is. And the way relativistic fanatics claim GPS system works is a lie.

Dilation is not classical, clock error is classical, if it's dilation they're not, if it's error they are. So - error or dilation, trash?

He wouldn't. And you lied he has done it, as expected from a very stupid piece of lying, fanatic s*it.

Of course I've heard of Occam's Razor.

William of Occam (1287-1347) didn't enuciate it as a guide to programmers. There weren't any around back then.

You seem to think that it means that if reality is more complicated than you like, you should ignore the complications.

In reality one should always opt for an explanation in terms of the fewest possible causes, factors, or variables. That's exactly what relativity does. Observation had established that the simple Newtonian rules left some observations unexplained, and special and general relativity provided a more complicated explanation that did include the aberrant observations.

Don't feed that leering menace.

But, accidentally, somehow it matched what we were doing 700 years later. And, also accidentally, the rules we invented later for us fit science.

Separate time variable not just for any of 8 billions of observers, but also for any fucken muon. Fewest possible, poor trash? Really? Are you sure?

It really means that one can believe what they want, or do.

I'm not a religious zealot, yet also I won't abandon the ideas of religion and organized religion to religious zealots, nor to those who abuse such associations.

Then as with regards to canon and dogma and doctrine of _reason_, while it's usually thoroughly given to Aristotle and Zeno and like accounts of classical expositions, then as well there are accounts like the Vedas as can be read for matters of projection and perspective, then for example about Medieval Scholasticism from where arrive Aquinas and Occam and here especially Duns Scotus with univocity and haeccity, that simply some of the accounts of reason have their roots in what even for atheists are historical dialog.

The old adage "one's right to swing their fist ends at the nose of the next", is about equal _rights_ and equal _protections_. Then, "freedom of religion" is basically "freedom of will", then though that some have that in their religion that it's not so.

Since freedom of will is a _right_, then also the responsibilities of actions are upon the wielder.

According to "reading the law", ....