The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 03:09:50 -0700, Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/18/2026 04:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2026 23:10:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:

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

This paper is a half-digested regurgitation of standard GNSS
relativity that collapses under its own sloppy equations, circular >>> definitions, and amateur-hour presentation.

The metric and rate equations are an unreadable train wreck.
Look at equations (1)?(5), (7), (13)?(18). They arrive as
fragmented garbage: missing operators, broken fractions, undefined >>> symbols jammed together, and statements like ?dt 2GM v? 1 / dt c?r c??
that no competent reader can parse without reconstructing the entire >>> derivation from scratch. A paper whose central results cannot be read >>> without external knowledge is not a paper; it is noise.
The foundational claim that ?SI-clocks per definition always run >>> at the rate 1 second per second? is pure tautological sludge.
Section 1.1 asserts this as if it were profound. It is
definitional emptiness. Proper time is what a clock measures;
declaring that an SI-clock therefore ticks at 1 s/s adds zero
information and papers over the entire problem of comparing rates
between different world-lines.
The derivation of orbital rates relative to UTC is a chain of >>> uncontrolled approximations sold as precision.
Equation (5) is declared ?a very good approximation? with error >>> <10??5; equation (17) claims error <10??7. No error budget, no
expansion order, no residual terms from higher multipoles, no
frame-dragging, no solar potential, no tidal contributions. You simply
assert the error and move on. That is not calculation; that is wishful
truncation.
The GNSS numerical results are presented as original while resting
on incomplete or outdated source data.
GPS radius is taken from a period of half a sidereal day; GLONASS
oscillates between a 2020 performance standard and a 2008 ICD that the
author himself labels outdated, then notes that Mudrak et al. used the
old number. The paper ends by declaring one geostationary value ?the >>> correct value? with no independent verification. This is not analysis;
it is selective copying.
Coordinate-time definitions are internally inconsistent and poorly
distinguished.
Schwarzschild t is defined so that an SI-clock at infinity stays >>> in sync; UTC is defined so that a stationary SI-clock on the geoid >>> stays in sync. Then the text repeatedly states that clocks showing >>> either coordinate are ?synchronous in the nonrotating Schwarzschild >>> coordinate system? while simultaneously acknowledging they are not >>> synchronous in the rotating Earth-fixed frame. The distinction between
coordinate simultaneity and proper-rate comparison is never cleanly >>> maintained, leaving the central comparison (dt/dt_utc) floating on >>> ambiguous foundations.

You assume the weak-field, slow-motion Schwarzschild metric is
sufficient once the monopole and J2 terms are inserted, with no
residual from higher harmonics, no post-Newtonian corrections beyond >>> the first order you kept, and no need to transform between the
Earth-centered inertial frame and the actual satellite ephemerides >>> used by the systems. You assume that declaring an SI-clock independent
of acceleration and temperature magically removes all environmental >>> sensitivity at the 10??7 level you claim. You assume that citing
Wikipedia for TAI and a handful of interface-control documents
constitutes a literature foundation.

Any competent reviewer or GNSS engineer who opens this PDF will stop >>> at the first mangled equation block and discard the rest. The people >>> who actually fly the clocks (GPS Wing, ESA, Roscosmos time
metrologists) already possess cleaner derivations (Ashby?s Living
Review being the obvious one). They have zero incentive to adopt a >>> document whose equations cannot be typeset legibly and whose numerical
claims require the reader to re-derive everything to trust them.
Regulators and standards bodies will treat this as non-peer-reviewed >>> noise.

At the claimed 10??7 relative accuracy the paper pretends to reach, >>> the ignored effects (higher multipoles, Shapiro delay variations,
satellite eccentricity terms, antenna phase-center motion, thermal and
magnetic sensitivity of the actual atomic clocks) already exceed that >>> floor on operational GNSS satellites. The circular-orbit idealization >>> breaks the moment real eccentricity appears; the geoid-rate reduction >>> ignores the full equipotential surface definition used by the IERS. >>> The numbers therefore cannot be trusted at the precision the text
advertises, and the paper supplies no path to the next significant >>> digit.

The entire equation presentation must be discarded and rewritten in >>> unambiguous, properly typeset form with every intermediate step shown.
The circular ?SI-clocks tick at 1 s/s? rhetoric must be deleted. The >>> error analysis must be replaced by a complete post-Newtonian expansion
with quantified residuals. The source handling for GLONASS and the >>> geostationary claim must be replaced by primary, current ephemeris >>> parameters and an independent calculation. The coordinate-time section
must be rewritten so that the distinction between coordinate time and >>> proper time is surgically clear rather than repeatedly blurred.



This is the intellectual equivalent of serving a half-cooked
Wellington with the raw center still cold and claiming it is a
precision metrology instrument.

The Swarmaker

I heard "Paul B. Andersen" commited suicide after reading his reviews >> from the swarm!


Let me have a look at Einstein's theory of everything is everything. I >> think i can fix it up..

it might be called 'The Gravity Unified Theory' now...

subtitled: 'FUCKING NOTHING TRAVELS FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF
LIGHT...while I'm alive.

You'll be spinning in your grave a long time.

I can do 'a little simple prompting' and I can solve this thing you call...The Theory of Everything.

with 'a little simple prompting' i can solve all your math problems. No need for
yous to go to math skool anymore. with 'a little simple prompting' i can crack the
mysteries of the universe.

Your world is changing right before your very eyes now.

i have all the knowledge i need.

i have all the 'knowledge' i need.

i have all the *knowledge* i need.

Ai is built incorectly. It needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up.

It needs to be fed only pictures, no words or numbers.

Just show a picture of Mars (without using the word Mars) and ask Ai,

Prompt: What do you see?

Of course it goes without saying you have to translate the words: What
do you see?...into pictures.

After a while, after you fed everything in outer space..
it will begin to draw it's own conclusions..
on what is what you show Ai Mars is..

next it needs to develop it's OWN language to express
what is this thing you call Mars.

Then you need to translate
the words Ai speaks in
into a language you can understand.






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

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)