When our clocks desynchronize and
we have to correct it - it's not
any "time dilation". It's a "clock
error" - a very classical phenomenon,
well known by Galileo and Newton
and most of primary school students.
"Time dilation" - is when our clocks
desynchronize and we do nothing about
it
Le 22/07/2025 à 12:33, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :using the same tools and procedure to compute "what to do about it",
When our clocks desynchronize and
we have to correct it - it's not
any "time dilation". It's a "clock
error" - a very classical phenomenon,
well known by Galileo and Newton
and most of primary school students.
"Time dilation" - is when our clocks
desynchronize and we do nothing about
it
What if two of the technicians you hired to "do something about it",
Le 22/07/2025 à 12:33, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
When our clocks desynchronize and
we have to correct it - it's not
any "time dilation". It's a "clock
error" - a very classical phenomenon,
well known by Galileo and Newton
and most of primary school students.
"Time dilation" - is when our clocks
desynchronize and we do nothing about
it
What if two of the technicians you hired to "do something about it", using the
same tools and procedure to compute "what to do about it", disagree about the correction to apply for the same two clocks?
On 7/22/2025 5:08 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/07/2025 à 12:33, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
When our clocks desynchronize and
we have to correct it - it's not
any "time dilation". It's a "clock
error" - a very classical phenomenon,
well known by Galileo and Newton
and most of primary school students.
"Time dilation" - is when our clocks
desynchronize and we do nothing about
it
What if two of the technicians you hired to "do something about it",using the same tools and procedure to compute "what to do about it",
disagree about the correction to apply for the same two clocks?
That's a simple one, poor stinker: I'm
not paying them.
Le 22/07/2025 à 18:17, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :it", using the same tools and procedure to compute "what to do about
On 7/22/2025 5:08 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/07/2025 à 12:33, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
When our clocks desynchronize and
we have to correct it - it's not
any "time dilation". It's a "clock
error" - a very classical phenomenon,
well known by Galileo and Newton
and most of primary school students.
"Time dilation" - is when our clocks
desynchronize and we do nothing about
it
What if two of the technicians you hired to "do something about
That's a simple one, poor stinker: I'm
not paying them.
I payed you to have these clocks synchronized.
You refund me then ?
On 7/22/2025 7:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/07/2025 à 18:17, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :it", using the same tools and procedure to compute "what to do about
On 7/22/2025 5:08 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/07/2025 à 12:33, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
When our clocks desynchronize and
we have to correct it - it's not
any "time dilation". It's a "clock
error" - a very classical phenomenon,
well known by Galileo and Newton
and most of primary school students.
"Time dilation" - is when our clocks
desynchronize and we do nothing about
it
What if two of the technicians you hired to "do something about
it", disagree about the correction to apply for the same two clocks?
That's a simple one, poor stinker: I'm
not paying them.
I payed you to have these clocks synchronized.
Did you? I don't remember.
You refund me then ?
And what if I don't?
Le 22/07/2025 à 21:11, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :about it", using the same tools and procedure to compute "what to do
On 7/22/2025 7:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/07/2025 à 18:17, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 7/22/2025 5:08 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/07/2025 à 12:33, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
When our clocks desynchronize and
we have to correct it - it's not
any "time dilation". It's a "clock
error" - a very classical phenomenon,
well known by Galileo and Newton
and most of primary school students.
"Time dilation" - is when our clocks
desynchronize and we do nothing about
it
What if two of the technicians you hired to "do something
That's a simple one, poor stinker: I'm
not paying them.
I payed you to have these clocks synchronized.
Did you? I don't remember.
You refund me then ?
And what if I don't?
I will hire someone else and ask her/him the same question.
On 7/22/2025 9:53 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/07/2025 à 21:11, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :about it", using the same tools and procedure to compute "what to do
On 7/22/2025 7:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/07/2025 à 18:17, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 7/22/2025 5:08 PM, Python wrote:
Le 22/07/2025 à 12:33, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
When our clocks desynchronize and
we have to correct it - it's not
any "time dilation". It's a "clock
error" - a very classical phenomenon,
well known by Galileo and Newton
and most of primary school students.
"Time dilation" - is when our clocks
desynchronize and we do nothing about
it
What if two of the technicians you hired to "do something
about it", disagree about the correction to apply for the same two clocks?
That's a simple one, poor stinker: I'm
not paying them.
I payed you to have these clocks synchronized.
Did you? I don't remember.
You refund me then ?
And what if I don't?
I will hire someone else and ask her/him the same question.
If you pay me handsomely I will
give you any answer you desire.
But, well, considering my attitude
When our clocks desynchronize and
we have to correct it - it's not
any "time dilation". It's a "clock
error" - a very classical phenomenon,
well known by Galileo and Newton
and most of primary school students.
"Time dilation" - is when our clocks
desynchronize and we do nothing about
it, because some idiot has asserted it's
correct and proper and demanded by
some Laws of Nature he invented.
Of course, there is no "time dilation"
in GPS. It exist only in gedankenland,
only gedanken people from gedankenland
can be stupid enough to treat the idiot
seriously. In the real world - stupidity
is never infinite, the idiot has been
mistaken about that too.
Einstein wrote about a process for synchronization, which didn't take
the delay into account, which is caused by the time needed to transfer a signal.
E.g. if there is a large clock on the Moon, which we could read out by a large telescope, the clock there would show a time ~1s too early.
Den 29.07.2025 09:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
Einstein wrote about a process for synchronization, which didn't take
the delay into account, which is caused by the time needed to transfer a
signal.
E.g. if there is a large clock on the Moon, which we could read out by a
large telescope, the clock there would show a time ~1s too early.
You can in principle sync a clock on the Moon with a clock on
the Earth if we do it when the distance Moon-Earth is fairly
constant for a few seconds, that is at the apogee or perigee,
and the observer at Earth and the observer on the Moon are
where they will see the other body at zenith.
The clocks wouldn't stay synchronous for long because
the clocks are at different gravitational potential.
But let's ignore this problem for now.
---------------------
We have an observer at point A on the Earth and another observer
at point B on the Moon. The observers have transceivers so they
can communicate with each other.
We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any
way, but they are using the same time unit second.
The clocks run at the same rate as defined by SI.
At point A the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_A, a light-detector, and a powerful laser.
The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
the laser is fired, and when the light-detector registers
a laser pulse from the Moon.
At point B the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer.
The computer can register the time shown by C_B when
the light-detector registers a laser pulse from the Earth.
Now the observer at A fires the laser.
At this instant, C_A is showing tA seconds.
When the laser pulse hits the mirror and the light-detector at B,
Clock C_B shows tx seconds.
Some time later the light detector at A registers
the laser pulse reflected by the mirror at B.
At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A seconds.
Now the observer at Earth can communicate with the Moon observer
and tell him that clock C_A showed tA when the laser pulse was
sent, and t'A when the reflected laser pulse was received.
The Moon observer knows that according to Einstein:
"The two clocks synchronise if tB − tA = t'A − tB."
So he knows that to be in sync, clock C_B should have shown
tB = (tA + t'A)/2
But since it showed tx, he must add the correction:
δ = tB - tx = (tA + t'A)/2 - tx
So when he corrects the clock C_B with δ seconds,
it will be in synch with clock C_A.
Do you miss a delay in the above?
Den 29.07.2025 09:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
Einstein wrote about a process for synchronization, which didn't take
the delay into account, which is caused by the time needed to transfer
a signal.
E.g. if there is a large clock on the Moon, which we could read out by
a large telescope, the clock there would show a time ~1s too early.
You can in principle sync a clock on the Moon with a clock on
the Earth if we do it when the distance Moon-Earth is fairly
constant for a few seconds, that is at the apogee or perigee,
and the observer at Earth and the observer on the Moon are
where they will see the other body at zenith.
The clocks wouldn't stay synchronous for long because
the clocks are at different gravitational potential.
But let's ignore this problem for now.
---------------------
We have an observer at point A on the Earth and another observer
at point B on the Moon.
We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any
way, but they are using the same time unit second.
The clocks run at the same rate as defined by SI.
Den 29.07.2025 09:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
Einstein wrote about a process for synchronization, which didn't take
the delay into account, which is caused by the time needed to transfer
a signal.
E.g. if there is a large clock on the Moon, which we could read out by
a large telescope, the clock there would show a time ~1s too early.
You can in principle sync a clock on the Moon with a clock on
the Earth if we do it when the distance Moon-Earth is fairly
constant for a few seconds, that is at the apogee or perigee,
and the observer at Earth and the observer on the Moon are
where they will see the other body at zenith.
The clocks wouldn't stay synchronous for long because
the clocks are at different gravitational potential.
But let's ignore this problem for now.
---------------------
We have an observer at point A on the Earth and another observer
at point B on the Moon. The observers have transceivers so they
can communicate with each other.
We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any
way, but they are using the same time unit second.
The clocks run at the same rate as defined by SI.
At point A the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_A, a light-detector, and a powerful laser.
The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
the laser is fired, and when the light-detector registers
a laser pulse from the Moon.
At point B the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer.
The computer can register the time shown by C_B when
the light-detector registers a laser pulse from the Earth.
Now the observer at A fires the laser.
At this instant, C_A is showing tA seconds.
When the laser pulse hits the mirror and the light-detector at B,
Clock C_B shows tx seconds.
Some time later the light detector at A registers
the laser pulse reflected by the mirror at B.
At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A seconds.
Now the observer at Earth can communicate with the Moon observer
and tell him that clock C_A showed tA when the laser pulse was
sent, and t'A when the reflected laser pulse was received.
The Moon observer knows that according to Einstein:
"The two clocks synchronise if tB − tA = t'A − tB."
So he knows that to be in sync, clock C_B should have shown
tB = (tA + t'A)/2
But since it showed tx, he must add the correction:
δ = tB - tx = (tA + t'A)/2 - tx
So when he corrects the clock C_B with δ seconds,
it will be in synch with clock C_A.
Do you miss a delay in the above?
Am Dienstag000029, 29.07.2025 um 22:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 29.07.2025 09:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
Einstein wrote about a process for synchronization, which didn't take
the delay into account, which is caused by the time needed to
transfer a signal.
E.g. if there is a large clock on the Moon, which we could read out
by a large telescope, the clock there would show a time ~1s too early.
You can in principle sync a clock on the Moon with a clock on
the Earth if we do it when the distance Moon-Earth is fairly
constant for a few seconds, that is at the apogee or perigee,
and the observer at Earth and the observer on the Moon are
where they will see the other body at zenith.
The clocks wouldn't stay synchronous for long because
the clocks are at different gravitational potential.
But let's ignore this problem for now.
---------------------
We have an observer at point A on the Earth and another observer
at point B on the Moon. The observers have transceivers so they
can communicate with each other.
We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any
way, but they are using the same time unit second.
The clocks run at the same rate as defined by SI.
At point A the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_A, a light-detector, and a powerful laser.
The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
the laser is fired, and when the light-detector registers
a laser pulse from the Moon.
At point B the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer.
The computer can register the time shown by C_B when
the light-detector registers a laser pulse from the Earth.
Now the observer at A fires the laser.
At this instant, C_A is showing tA seconds.
When the laser pulse hits the mirror and the light-detector at B,
Clock C_B shows tx seconds.
Some time later the light detector at A registers
the laser pulse reflected by the mirror at B.
At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A seconds.
Now the observer at Earth can communicate with the Moon observer
and tell him that clock C_A showed tA when the laser pulse was
sent, and t'A when the reflected laser pulse was received.
The Moon observer knows that according to Einstein:
"The two clocks synchronise if tB − tA = t'A − tB."
So he knows that to be in sync, clock C_B should have shown
tB = (tA + t'A)/2
But since it showed tx, he must add the correction:
δ = tB - tx = (tA + t'A)/2 - tx
So when he corrects the clock C_B with δ seconds,
it will be in synch with clock C_A.
Do you miss a delay in the above?
No, but in Einstein's paper.
Actually I can almost sing 'On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies' and
can assure you, that 'transit delay' or anything similar was neither calculated, measured or even mentioned.
Einstein seemingly assumed, that the actual reading of the remote clock
would be the remote time.
To eleminate this error, you would need to 'ping' the remote station,
measure the delay for a round trip, cut that in half (supposed the
remote station is in relative rest) and add this value to your own time.
Then you need to encode the own time plus delay into a signal and send
that to the remote station.
The remote station would need to decode the signal, extract the time
value and adjust the own clockks according to that value.
But Einstein didn't say anything like that.
This problem was simply missing entirely in his paper.
Den 30.07.2025 19:25, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Dienstag000029, 29.07.2025 um 22:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 29.07.2025 09:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
Einstein wrote about a process for synchronization, which didn't take
the delay into account, which is caused by the time needed to
transfer a signal.
E.g. if there is a large clock on the Moon, which we could read out
by a large telescope, the clock there would show a time ~1s too early.
You can in principle sync a clock on the Moon with a clock on
the Earth if we do it when the distance Moon-Earth is fairly
constant for a few seconds, that is at the apogee or perigee,
and the observer at Earth and the observer on the Moon are
where they will see the other body at zenith.
The clocks wouldn't stay synchronous for long because
the clocks are at different gravitational potential.
But let's ignore this problem for now.
---------------------
Read this again when you have read my response below:
We have an observer at point A on the Earth and another observer
at point B on the Moon. The observers have transceivers so they
can communicate with each other.
We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any
way, but they are using the same time unit second.
The clocks run at the same rate as defined by SI.
At point A the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_A, a light-detector, and a powerful laser.
The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
the laser is fired, and when the light-detector registers
a laser pulse from the Moon.
At point B the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer.
The computer can register the time shown by C_B when
the light-detector registers a laser pulse from the Earth.
Now the observer at A fires the laser.
At this instant, C_A is showing tA seconds.
When the laser pulse hits the mirror and the light-detector at B,
Clock C_B shows tx seconds.
Some time later the light detector at A registers
the laser pulse reflected by the mirror at B.
At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A seconds.
Now the observer at Earth can communicate with the Moon observer
and tell him that clock C_A showed tA when the laser pulse was
sent, and t'A when the reflected laser pulse was received.
The Moon observer knows that according to Einstein:
"The two clocks synchronise if tB − tA = t'A − tB."
So he knows that to be in sync, clock C_B should have shown
tB = (tA + t'A)/2
But since it showed tx, he must add the correction:
δ = tB - tx = (tA + t'A)/2 - tx
So when he corrects the clock C_B with δ seconds,
it will be in synch with clock C_A.
Do you miss a delay in the above?
No, but in Einstein's paper.
Actually I can almost sing 'On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies' and
can assure you, that 'transit delay' or anything similar was neither
calculated, measured or even mentioned.
Quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity:
"we establish by definition that the “time” required by light
to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel
from B to A."
"the time required by light to travel from A to B" _is_
the 'transit delay' you say is never mentioned.
Another quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB − tA = t′A − tB."
If the clocks synchronise, then the transit delay for
the pulse is tB − tA = t′A − tB.
The transit delay is _measured_!
So the transit delay is calculated, measured and mentioned.
How did you manage to miss that?
You must have a serious reading comprehension problem!
Einstein seemingly assumed, that the actual reading of the remote clock
would be the remote time.
? ? ? Is the clock at B the "remote clock"?
Do you mean that the actual reading of the clock at B
is _not_ the time showed by clock B?
Or what do you mean?
To eleminate this error, you would need to 'ping' the remote station,
measure the delay for a round trip, cut that in half (supposed the
remote station is in relative rest) and add this value to your own time.
There is no error to correct.
Then you need to encode the own time plus delay into a signal and send
that to the remote station.
Good Grief! :-D
1. The observer at A reads the time tA when the light pulse
is sent. He reads the clock at A!
2. The observer at B reads the time tB when the light pulse
is reflected. He reads the clock at B!
3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when he receives
the reflected light pulse. He reads the clock at A!
These are all the measurements that are done.
Only local clocks are read.
There is no "reading of the remote clock"!
The observer at A has _measured_ the transit delay.
It is (t'A-tA)/2 ! How did you manage to miss that?
To check if the clock at B is synchronous the observers have
to communicate. They can do it by shouting, send it by snail mail,
E-post, a mobile phone or whatever.
And there is not necessary to encrypt anything!
If they find that their clocks are not synchronous, the clock
at B can be corrected as I explained above,
The remote station would need to decode the signal, extract the time
value and adjust the own clockks according to that value.
But Einstein didn't say anything like that.
Quite. Einstein wasn't stupid!
Now you can read my previous post quoted above again.
But with your serious reading comprehension problem,
you will probably not understand it.
This problem was simply missing entirely in his paper.
Right. All your problems are missing.
There is no problem in his paper.
Le 31/07/2025 à 21:59, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 30.07.2025 19:25, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Dienstag000029, 29.07.2025 um 22:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 29.07.2025 09:48, skrev Thomas Heger:
You can in principle sync a clock on the Moon with a clock on
Einstein wrote about a process for synchronization, which didn't take >>>>> the delay into account, which is caused by the time needed to
transfer a signal.
E.g. if there is a large clock on the Moon, which we could read out
by a large telescope, the clock there would show a time ~1s too early. >>>>
the Earth if we do it when the distance Moon-Earth is fairly
constant for a few seconds, that is at the apogee or perigee,
and the observer at Earth and the observer on the Moon are
where they will see the other body at zenith.
The clocks wouldn't stay synchronous for long because
the clocks are at different gravitational potential.
But let's ignore this problem for now.
---------------------
Read this again when you have read my response below:
We have an observer at point A on the Earth and another observer
at point B on the Moon. The observers have transceivers so they
can communicate with each other.
We have to equal clocks C_A and C_B. They are not synced in any
way, but they are using the same time unit second.
The clocks run at the same rate as defined by SI.
At point A the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_A, a light-detector, and a powerful laser.
The computer can register the time shown by C_A when
the laser is fired, and when the light-detector registers
a laser pulse from the Moon.
At point B the observer has the following instruments:
Clock C_B, a light-detector, a mirror and a computer.
The computer can register the time shown by C_B when
the light-detector registers a laser pulse from the Earth.
Now the observer at A fires the laser.
At this instant, C_A is showing tA seconds.
When the laser pulse hits the mirror and the light-detector at B,
Clock C_B shows tx seconds.
Some time later the light detector at A registers
the laser pulse reflected by the mirror at B.
At this instant Clock C_A shows t'A seconds.
Now the observer at Earth can communicate with the Moon observer
and tell him that clock C_A showed tA when the laser pulse was
sent, and t'A when the reflected laser pulse was received.
The Moon observer knows that according to Einstein:
"The two clocks synchronise if tB − tA = t'A − tB."
So he knows that to be in sync, clock C_B should have shown
tB = (tA + t'A)/2
But since it showed tx, he must add the correction:
δ = tB - tx = (tA + t'A)/2 - tx
So when he corrects the clock C_B with δ seconds,
it will be in synch with clock C_A.
Do you miss a delay in the above?
No, but in Einstein's paper.
Actually I can almost sing 'On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies' and >>> can assure you, that 'transit delay' or anything similar was neither
calculated, measured or even mentioned.
Quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity:
"we establish by definition that the “time” required by light
to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel
from B to A."
"the time required by light to travel from A to B" _is_
the 'transit delay' you say is never mentioned.
Another quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB − tA = t′A − tB."
If the clocks synchronise, then the transit delay for
the pulse is tB − tA = t′A − tB.
The transit delay is _measured_!
So the transit delay is calculated, measured and mentioned.
How did you manage to miss that?
You must have a serious reading comprehension problem!
Einstein seemingly assumed, that the actual reading of the remote clock
would be the remote time.
? ? ? Is the clock at B the "remote clock"?
Do you mean that the actual reading of the clock at B
is _not_ the time showed by clock B?
Or what do you mean?
To eleminate this error, you would need to 'ping' the remote station,
measure the delay for a round trip, cut that in half (supposed the
remote station is in relative rest) and add this value to your own time.
There is no error to correct.
Then you need to encode the own time plus delay into a signal and send
that to the remote station.
Good Grief! :-D
1. The observer at A reads the time tA when the light pulse
is sent. He reads the clock at A!
2. The observer at B reads the time tB when the light pulse
is reflected. He reads the clock at B!
3. The observer at A reads the time t'A when he receives
the reflected light pulse. He reads the clock at A!
These are all the measurements that are done.
Only local clocks are read.
There is no "reading of the remote clock"!
The observer at A has _measured_ the transit delay.
It is (t'A-tA)/2 ! How did you manage to miss that?
To check if the clock at B is synchronous the observers have
to communicate. They can do it by shouting, send it by snail mail,
E-post, a mobile phone or whatever.
And there is not necessary to encrypt anything!
If they find that their clocks are not synchronous, the clock
at B can be corrected as I explained above,
The remote station would need to decode the signal, extract the time
value and adjust the own clockks according to that value.
But Einstein didn't say anything like that.
Quite. Einstein wasn't stupid!
Now you can read my previous post quoted above again.
But with your serious reading comprehension problem,
you will probably not understand it.
This problem was simply missing entirely in his paper.
Right. All your problems are missing.
There is no problem in his paper.
Moreover Thomas could see this procedure in action at https://noedge.ne/e/
He could even check the source code and see Einstein's very equation are used to
compute the delay to be applied to any of both clocks or both.
Replaying the synchronisation checking procedure allow te see how it is reflexive and symmetric.
I may add more clocks to illustrate that the procedure is transitive.
Which all that is needed to dismiss idiotic Hachel's claims btw...
Le 01/08/2025 à 18:50, Python a écrit :
Le 31/07/2025 à 21:59, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Which all that is needed to dismiss idiotic Hachel's claims btw..
:))
R.H.
Le 31/07/2025 à 21:59, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Which all that is needed to dismiss idiotic Hachel's claims btw..
Le 01/08/2025 à 18:50, Python a écrit :
Le 31/07/2025 à 21:59, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Which all that is needed to dismiss idiotic Hachel's claims btw..
:))
R.H.
Thomas could even see the delay applied according to the exact equations
from Einstein's article as used in my Web app there: https://noedge.net/e/
SI idiocy is unusable and not used.
Den 30.07.2025 07:08, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
Another wise statement by Maciej Woźniak! :-D
SI idiocy is unusable and not used.
... a disgusting piece of lying shit can't lie non stop.
On 8/2/2025 2:01 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 à 13:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
... a disgusting piece of lying shit can't lie non stop.
You are a proof that it may, Maciej.
See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be not even consistent
and you can do nothing
about it apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
Shit and your beloved church.
Le 02/08/2025 à 13:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
... a disgusting piece of lying shit can't lie non stop.
You are a proof that it may, Maciej.
Le 02/08/2025 à 14:17, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 8/2/2025 2:01 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 à 13:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
... a disgusting piece of lying shit can't lie non stop.
You are a proof that it may, Maciej.
See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be not even consistent
You did nothing of this kind.
On 8/2/2025 2:36 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 à 14:17, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 8/2/2025 2:01 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 à 13:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
... a disgusting piece of lying shit can't lie non stop.
You are a proof that it may, Maciej.
See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be not even consistent
You did nothing of this kind.
Surely I did
Le 02/08/2025 à 17:26, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 8/2/2025 2:36 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 à 14:17, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 8/2/2025 2:01 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 à 13:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
... a disgusting piece of lying shit can't lie non stop.
You are a proof that it may, Maciej.
See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be not even consistent
You did nothing of this kind.
Surely I did
No you didn't.
I, and others, have shown how ridiculous your alleged "proof" is.
On 8/2/2025 7:14 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 à 17:26, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 8/2/2025 2:36 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 à 14:17, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 8/2/2025 2:01 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 à 13:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
... a disgusting piece of lying shit can't lie non stop.
You are a proof that it may, Maciej.
See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be not even consistent
You did nothing of this kind.
Surely I did
No you didn't.
Surely I did
I, and others, have shown how ridiculous your alleged "proof" is.
You waved arms, spitted and slandered.
And others.
Le 02/08/2025 à 19:29, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 8/2/2025 7:14 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 à 17:26, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 8/2/2025 2:36 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 à 14:17, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 8/2/2025 2:01 PM, Python wrote:
Le 02/08/2025 à 13:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
... a disgusting piece of lying shit can't lie non stop.
You are a proof that it may, Maciej.
See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be not even consistent
You did nothing of this kind.
Surely I did
No you didn't.
Surely I did
No, you didn't.
I, and others, have shown how ridiculous your alleged "proof" is.
You waved arms, spitted and slandered.
And others.
No, this not what we did.
This what you do anyway.
Den 30.07.2025 12:54, skrev Python:
Thomas could even see the delay applied according to the exact
equations from Einstein's article as used in my Web app there:
https://noedge.net/e/
Nice!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 169:43:24 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,555 |