On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 14:07:39 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Oh but what does matter is the 12 meters, which you fabricated on your own,
> tying it to a train which you fabricated on your own, because your “thesis”
> is that time durations and relativistic effects associated with 12 meter
> things were too small to measure back in 1905 and so qualified as bad
> science somehow.
>
> So the trolling has everything to do with you fabricating things to try to
> make a false point, which is exactly what political propagandists do just
> to stir the pot.

Odd, poor halfbrain, with second defined as it was in 1905
the measurement results matching your Shit were not
only a technical impossibility, but also a self-denying
nonsense. Your idiot gurus were fabricating things
to try to make a false point, which is exactly what political
propagandists do just to stir the pot.

On 10/21/2021 8:30 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 14:07:39 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Oh but what does matter is the 12 meters, which you fabricated on your own,
>> tying it to a train which you fabricated on your own, because your “thesis”
>> is that time durations and relativistic effects associated with 12 meter
>> things were too small to measure back in 1905 and so qualified as bad
>> science somehow.
>>
>> So the trolling has everything to do with you fabricating things to try to
>> make a false point, which is exactly what political propagandists do just
>> to stir the pot.
>
>
> Odd, poor halfbrain, with second defined as it was in 1905

Are you still claiming that just because they were using the best clock
they had at the time, they must continue to use that same clock although
much better clocks exist now, and they are enough better that we can
measure irregularities in that first clock?

What about Newton's science? Perhaps he had a good (for the time, 400
years ago) pendulum clock which he used for measuring time in his
experiments? We must base all Newtonian science on this clock? What if
this clock no longer exists, which is rather likely? What if this clock
ran a bit fast or slow and had to be reset to solar time weekly or
something? Remember, solar time couldn't be measured to better than a
minute, even after adjusting for irregularities such as analemma/time of
year, earth orbit, latitude etc. The second wasn't even defined, only
pendulum clocks could measure time with enough precision.

Or maybe you just don't know the difference between time and a clock is?

On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 15:44:56 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/21/2021 8:30 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 14:07:39 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Oh but what does matter is the 12 meters, which you fabricated on your own,
> >> tying it to a train which you fabricated on your own, because your “thesis”
> >> is that time durations and relativistic effects associated with 12 meter
> >> things were too small to measure back in 1905 and so qualified as bad
> >> science somehow.
> >>
> >> So the trolling has everything to do with you fabricating things to try to
> >> make a false point, which is exactly what political propagandists do just
> >> to stir the pot.
> >
> >
> > Odd, poor halfbrain, with second defined as it was in 1905
> Are you still claiming that just because they were using the best clock
> they had at the time, they must continue to use that same clock although
> much better clocks exist now

And are you still beating your wife, stupid Mike?

And, BTW, these "much better clocks" that exist now obey
the same definition of second that was valid for your idiot
guru. Anyone can check GPS, TAI, UTC - your new and
better second is ignored by all timekeeping systems. If
your gurus didn't ban common sense from your moronic
physics - maybe they would be able to make standards
not only perfect, but also a bit usable....

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 10/21/2021 8:30 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 14:07:39 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Oh but what does matter is the 12 meters, which you fabricated on your own,
>>> tying it to a train which you fabricated on your own, because your “thesis”
>>> is that time durations and relativistic effects associated with 12 meter
>>> things were too small to measure back in 1905 and so qualified as bad
>>> science somehow.
>>>
>>> So the trolling has everything to do with you fabricating things to try to
>>> make a false point, which is exactly what political propagandists do just
>>> to stir the pot.
>>
>>
>> Odd, poor halfbrain, with second defined as it was in 1905
>
> Are you still claiming that just because they were using the best clock
> they had at the time, they must continue to use that same clock although
> much better clocks exist now, and they are enough better that we can
> measure irregularities in that first clock?
>
> What about Newton's science? Perhaps he had a good (for the time, 400
> years ago) pendulum clock which he used for measuring time in his
> experiments? We must base all Newtonian science on this clock? What if
> this clock no longer exists, which is rather likely? What if this clock
> ran a bit fast or slow and had to be reset to solar time weekly or
> something? Remember, solar time couldn't be measured to better than a
> minute, even after adjusting for irregularities such as analemma/time of
> year, earth orbit, latitude etc. The second wasn't even defined, only
> pendulum clocks could measure time with enough precision.
>
> Or maybe you just don't know the difference between time and a clock is?
>

Keep in mind that Wozniak is very much in favor of using that which:

- served people well for the longest period of time, like Euclidean
geometry was for 2000 years. Or, for that matter, geocentrism and the
belief that the earth is stationary.

- is understood and accepted by most lay people, not by specialists. Like a
second being 1/24/60/60 day.

- avoids standards, which Woz considers punitive and Soviet-style
authoritative, and which he is going to naturally rebel for its own sake.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 10:44:56 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/21/2021 8:30 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

<snip>

> Or maybe you just don't know the difference between time and a clock is?

Time is the punishment for sins of mortal beings with consciousness.

A clock is what Einstein used to measure nanoseconds in 1905.

Ants don't feel compelled to measure time, nor they need a clock. Perfect timing is embedded into nature, and is elusive to us.

But idiots like you need to tick time in femtoseconds steps, for now. Why? Because you are told that femtoseconds matter, imbecile.

The same thing with relativity. You are another relativistic lap dog which is trained to obey or else.

Richard Hertz wrote:

> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 10:44:56 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney
> wrote:
>> Or maybe you just don't know the difference between time and a clock
>> is?
>
> Time is the punishment for sins of mortal beings with consciousness.
> A clock is what Einstein used to measure nanoseconds in 1905.

you must be kidding are you. And you are supposedly an engineer.

On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 17:56:27 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> > On 10/21/2021 8:30 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 14:07:39 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Oh but what does matter is the 12 meters, which you fabricated on your own,
> >>> tying it to a train which you fabricated on your own, because your “thesis”
> >>> is that time durations and relativistic effects associated with 12 meter
> >>> things were too small to measure back in 1905 and so qualified as bad
> >>> science somehow.
> >>>
> >>> So the trolling has everything to do with you fabricating things to try to
> >>> make a false point, which is exactly what political propagandists do just
> >>> to stir the pot.
> >>
> >>
> >> Odd, poor halfbrain, with second defined as it was in 1905
> >
> > Are you still claiming that just because they were using the best clock
> > they had at the time, they must continue to use that same clock although
> > much better clocks exist now, and they are enough better that we can
> > measure irregularities in that first clock?
> >
> > What about Newton's science? Perhaps he had a good (for the time, 400
> > years ago) pendulum clock which he used for measuring time in his
> > experiments? We must base all Newtonian science on this clock? What if
> > this clock no longer exists, which is rather likely? What if this clock
> > ran a bit fast or slow and had to be reset to solar time weekly or
> > something? Remember, solar time couldn't be measured to better than a
> > minute, even after adjusting for irregularities such as analemma/time of
> > year, earth orbit, latitude etc. The second wasn't even defined, only
> > pendulum clocks could measure time with enough precision.
> >
> > Or maybe you just don't know the difference between time and a clock is?
> >
> Keep in mind that Wozniak is very much in favor of using that which:
>
> - served people well for the longest period of time, like Euclidean
> geometry was for 2000 years. Or, for that matter, geocentrism and the
> belief that the earth is stationary.
>
> - is understood and accepted by most lay people, not by specialists. Like a
> second being 1/24/60/60 day.
>
> - avoids standards, which Woz considers punitive and Soviet-style
> authoritative, and which he is going to naturally rebel for its own sake.

Keep in mind that Bodkin is too dumb for any discussion, just
like any other relativistic moron, so he barks, spits and slanders
instead.

On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 18:08:50 UTC+2, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 10:44:56 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 10/21/2021 8:30 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> <snip>
> > Or maybe you just don't know the difference between time and a clock is?
> Time is the punishment for sins of mortal beings with consciousness.
>
> A clock is what Einstein used to measure nanoseconds in 1905.
>
> Ants don't feel compelled to measure time, nor they need a clock.

Ants are rather dumb. Dumber even than physicists. Well,
even than Bodkin.

On 10/21/2021 10:22 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 15:44:56 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 10/21/2021 8:30 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 14:07:39 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh but what does matter is the 12 meters, which you fabricated on your own,
>>>> tying it to a train which you fabricated on your own, because your “thesis”
>>>> is that time durations and relativistic effects associated with 12 meter
>>>> things were too small to measure back in 1905 and so qualified as bad
>>>> science somehow.
>>>>
>>>> So the trolling has everything to do with you fabricating things to try to
>>>> make a false point, which is exactly what political propagandists do just
>>>> to stir the pot.
>>>
>>>
>>> Odd, poor halfbrain, with second defined as it was in 1905

>> Are you still claiming that just because they were using the best clock
>> they had at the time, they must continue to use that same clock although
>> much better clocks exist now
>
> And are you still beating your wife, stupid Mike?

I don't see how that quip could apply.
>
> And, BTW, these "much better clocks" that exist now obey
> the same definition of second that was valid for your idiot
> guru.

The definition of the second is 9192631770 times the period of the Cs
hyperfine level, not implemented until long after Einstein's death.
Atomic Cs clocks simply did not exist in 1905 so your claim is false.

> Anyone can check GPS, TAI, UTC - your new and
> better second is ignored by all timekeeping systems.

Nope. All those time definitions tick in lockstep with each other, as
they would have to, since they all use the Cs definition of the second.
They differ from each other only by an exact number of seconds (based on
each time's 'zero time' and whether they have leap seconds added once in
a while to keep in synch with the wobbly earth. UT1 is an exception, it
is an actual solar time based on Greenwich observatory observations. UTC
is the accurate second version of UT1, it "ticks" synchronously with the
atomic clock base same as TAI. UTC may have leap seconds added to it or
subtracted from it once in a while so its "midnight" never differs from
UT1 midnight by more than 0.9 seconds. GPS ticks with TAI but differs
from it by a constant number of seconds, because GPS time's "zero" is
the start of the GPS system while TAI's "zero" is earlier. Local civil
time is UTC time plus/minus a time zone offset.

[it may be the case UT1 is now based on the Sidereal day, 86164 seconds
between a star's crossing of a meridian. Still based on earth's rotation
but more accurate than pure solar time]

> If your gurus didn't ban common sense from your moronic
> physics

Physics uses science. The results of science may conflict with "common
sense" (Whose common sense, BTW?).

> - maybe they would be able to make standards
> not only perfect, but also a bit usable....

Existing time standards are quite good.

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 2:22:04 PM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 18:08:50 UTC+2, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 10:44:56 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > On 10/21/2021 8:30 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Or maybe you just don't know the difference between time and a clock is?
> > Time is the punishment for sins of mortal beings with consciousness.
> >
> > A clock is what Einstein used to measure nanoseconds in 1905.
> >
> > Ants don't feel compelled to measure time, nor they need a clock.
> Ants are rather dumb. Dumber even than physicists. Well,
> even than Bodkin.

Ants maybe appear as dumb beings or compelled to measure time. They are smart enough to make things
needed to survive. They know what time is it without using wristwatches, sand or solar clocks.

Time is dictated by their bio-physics and their limited lifespan.

So, ants perceive time, energy, space through motion and light. And maybe their second is our microsecond.

Because, somehow, humans perceive time flow in relation to their size.

If we were 1,000 meters tall, our second would be 100 seconds probably.

We, as biological entities, perceive nature through our senses, not formulae, wristwatches or technology.

We use bio-physics and psycho-physics to perceive our surroundings. For instance, reality flows in front of us
at a rate of 24 pictures/second. Our sense of vision (except for prodigies at sport) can't decipher motion at any
higher rate. So, our natural sense of time flowing is based on ticks of 40 millisec each.

And our natural visual perception of reality is based on coarse and fine optical resolution well under 10 Megapixels,
24 bits each.

Same thing with our senses of hearing and positioning, provided by our auditory and vestibular systems.

But physicists insist in dealing with 10E-18 seconds and meters, even lower values, and time dilation in the range
of 10E-10 parts of a second, as if it would make any valuable contribution to our welfare.

Now, think for a moment and tell me which specie is smarter: humans or ants? Or dolphins, wolves, lizards (Dono), etc.

That should make one wonder: Why should I pay, indirectly, for the pretensions of a group of socially retarded imbeciles
who choose pen and paper to write mathematical based SHIT, instead of contributing to A REAL ADVANCE IN SOCIETY.

So, besides establishment (MIC, bankers, institutions) and physicists, who profit from current affairs, who else is benefited?

On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 22:20:23 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/21/2021 10:22 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 15:44:56 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 10/21/2021 8:30 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 14:07:39 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Oh but what does matter is the 12 meters, which you fabricated on your own,
> >>>> tying it to a train which you fabricated on your own, because your “thesis”
> >>>> is that time durations and relativistic effects associated with 12 meter
> >>>> things were too small to measure back in 1905 and so qualified as bad
> >>>> science somehow.
> >>>>
> >>>> So the trolling has everything to do with you fabricating things to try to
> >>>> make a false point, which is exactly what political propagandists do just
> >>>> to stir the pot.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Odd, poor halfbrain, with second defined as it was in 1905
>
> >> Are you still claiming that just because they were using the best clock
> >> they had at the time, they must continue to use that same clock although
> >> much better clocks exist now
> >
> > And are you still beating your wife, stupid Mike?
> I don't see how that quip could apply.

Of course you don't, you're just a stupid Mike.
So, have you stopped beating your wife or not?

> > And, BTW, these "much better clocks" that exist now obey
> > the same definition of second that was valid for your idiot
> > guru.
> The definition of the second is 9192631770 times the period of the Cs
> hyperfine level

Even assuming it is now - it was not when your idiot guru
lived and mumbled; so - up to 1968 (AFAIR) the results
of measurement matching his idiocies were just a
self-denying nonsense.

> > better second is ignored by all timekeeping systems.
> Nope. All those time definitions tick in lockstep with each other, as
> they would have to, since they all use the Cs definition of the second.

Nope. None of them is applying Cs definition of second.
In GPS the difference reach 4 Cs periods. In TAI it is smaller,
but still obvious. UTC uses TAI seconds, of course.

> Physics uses science. The results of science may conflict with "common
> sense" (Whose common sense, BTW?).

GPS on the other hand, like any engineering, uses common
sense. As science has abandoned it - the results may conflict
with science, and they do.

> > - maybe they would be able to make standards
> > not only perfect, but also a bit usable....
> Existing time standards are quite good.

Quite good for your idiot gurus and their childish
games. According to your wannabe standard
Cs clocks should be set to 9192631770 everywhere.
Is 9192631774 of GPS equal to 9192631770, stupid
Mike?
According to the old definition, announced wrong
by your idiot scientists - Cs clocks should be set
to 9192631770 on Earth and 9192631774 on a
GPS satellite. And that's exactly how they are set
by men doing measurements for real, not just in
gedankens.

Am 20.10.2021 um 12:16 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 29.09.2021 um 14:39 schrieb Python:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Whoever wrote 'Principia' was most likely not Newton.
>>>>
>>>> This is a similar phenomenon as Shakespeare. He wrote simply too many
>>>> books in too few years and too early in life. So, possibly somethings
>>>> wrong with the entire story...
>>>
>>> *LOL*
>>
>> It is entirely possible, that the literature written by Shakespeare was
>> in fact written by others and only presented as works of Shakespeare.
>>
>> We have this problem of authorship in many cases :
>>
>> is this piece of art, music, science or literature actually produced by
>> the famed creator himself (personally)?
>>
>> Did the Beatles (for instance) actually wrote their songs themselves?
>> Did they play the intruments on the recordings and do we hear their real
>> voices?
>>
>> How could we possibly know?
>
> Good grief.

Unless you hear a musician life and unplugged, you cannot possibly know,
if he can play any music at all.

The question is ubiquitious in all sorts of arts.

So: unless proven otherwise, you should assume, the product of art,
attributed to a person or set of person, is produced by artificial
intelligence.

This assumption would be wrong in almost every case, but would at least
cover all other possibilities of faked authorship.

....

TH

Am 21.10.2021 um 22:27 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 2:22:04 PM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 18:08:50 UTC+2, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 10:44:56 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2021 8:30 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> Or maybe you just don't know the difference between time and a clock is?
>>> Time is the punishment for sins of mortal beings with consciousness.
>>>
>>> A clock is what Einstein used to measure nanoseconds in 1905.
>>>
>>> Ants don't feel compelled to measure time, nor they need a clock.
>> Ants are rather dumb. Dumber even than physicists. Well,
>> even than Bodkin.
>
> Ants maybe appear as dumb beings or compelled to measure time. They are smart enough to make things
> needed to survive. They know what time is it without using wristwatches, sand or solar clocks.
>
> Time is dictated by their bio-physics and their limited lifespan.
>
> So, ants perceive time, energy, space through motion and light. And maybe their second is our microsecond.
>
> Because, somehow, humans perceive time flow in relation to their size.
>
> If we were 1,000 meters tall, our second would be 100 seconds probably.

I personally think, that smaller entities have a time, which runs faster.

We humans have a step of a little less than a meter and base our
measurement on that as human scale.

But giants were actually thinkable, if you scale a human up, and make
the giants time much slower.

You could also shrink a human to ant-size and make the mini-man behave
much faster.

The time measure functions than as a filter, for what the being regards
as 'normal'.

If now a comman man travels to the ant-sized people, he would be
regarded as a giant, who acts extremely slow.

....TH

Am 20.10.2021 um 16:20 schrieb Dirk Van de moortel:
....
>> They should have forbidden such ridiculous paper, but Drude (Annalen
>> Chief Editor) and others had an agenda.
>
>
> Of course they had an agenda: to annoy the living shit out
> of a bunch of future retired engineers with nothing better
> to do than spend the rest of their miserable days on some
> obscure soapbox forum serving as a stage for village idiots.
>

You can extend this (true) observation a bit and include freshmen in
physics, too.

Only the stage is different and not called 'Usenet', but 'academia'.

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 20.10.2021 um 12:16 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 29.09.2021 um 14:39 schrieb Python:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Whoever wrote 'Principia' was most likely not Newton.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a similar phenomenon as Shakespeare. He wrote simply too many
>>>>> books in too few years and too early in life. So, possibly somethings
>>>>> wrong with the entire story...
>>>>
>>>> *LOL*
>>>
>>> It is entirely possible, that the literature written by Shakespeare was
>>> in fact written by others and only presented as works of Shakespeare.
>>>
>>> We have this problem of authorship in many cases :
>>>
>>> is this piece of art, music, science or literature actually produced by
>>> the famed creator himself (personally)?
>>>
>>> Did the Beatles (for instance) actually wrote their songs themselves?
>>> Did they play the intruments on the recordings and do we hear their real
>>> voices?
>>>
>>> How could we possibly know?
>>
>> Good grief.
>
>
> Unless you hear a musician life and unplugged, you cannot possibly know,
> if he can play any music at all.
>
> The question is ubiquitious in all sorts of arts.
>
> So: unless proven otherwise, you should assume, the product of art,
> attributed to a person or set of person, is produced by artificial
> intelligence.

No you should not assume that.

Now some crazy folks might operate like this, assuming the most outlier
case out of some need for emotional protection, but that’s a mental
illness.

Normal people do not assume the most unlikely case.

>
> This assumption would be wrong in almost every case, but would at least
> cover all other possibilities of faked authorship.
>
>
>
> ...
>
> TH
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 10/22/2021 2:23 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 22:20:23 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 10/21/2021 10:22 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 15:44:56 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2021 8:30 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 14:07:39 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh but what does matter is the 12 meters, which you fabricated on your own,
>>>>>> tying it to a train which you fabricated on your own, because your “thesis”
>>>>>> is that time durations and relativistic effects associated with 12 meter
>>>>>> things were too small to measure back in 1905 and so qualified as bad
>>>>>> science somehow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the trolling has everything to do with you fabricating things to try to
>>>>>> make a false point, which is exactly what political propagandists do just
>>>>>> to stir the pot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Odd, poor halfbrain, with second defined as it was in 1905
>>
>>>> Are you still claiming that just because they were using the best clock
>>>> they had at the time, they must continue to use that same clock although
>>>> much better clocks exist now
>>>
>>> And are you still beating your wife, stupid Mike?
>> I don't see how that quip could apply.
>
> Of course you don't, you're just a stupid Mike.
> So, have you stopped beating your wife or not?

Why don't you tell us why you are obsessed with the 1905 definition of
the second and why our current much more accurate definition shouldn't
be used?
>
>
>>> And, BTW, these "much better clocks" that exist now obey
>>> the same definition of second that was valid for your idiot
>>> guru.
>> The definition of the second is 9192631770 times the period of the Cs
>> hyperfine level[, not implemented until long after Einstein's death.
>> Atomic Cs clocks simply did not exist in 1905 so your claim is false.]
>
> Even assuming it is now - it was not when your idiot guru
> lived and mumbled; so - up to 1968 (AFAIR) the results
> of measurement matching his idiocies were just a
> self-denying nonsense.

Again, tell us why you consider this relevant.
>
>
>> > Anyone can check GPS, TAI, UTC - your new and
>>> better second is ignored by all timekeeping systems.

>> Nope. All those time definitions tick in lockstep with each other, as
>> they would have to, since they all use the Cs definition of the second.
>
> Nope. None of them is applying Cs definition of second.

They all do (except UT1).

TAI ticks SI seconds, 1 tick per 9192631770 cycles of the Cs hyperfine
frequency.

UTC ticks SI seconds, in lockstep with TAI, except leap seconds are
added (or subtracted) as needed to adjust for irregularities of the
rotation of the earth. This is because UTC is the basis of local civil
time (UTC+timezone offset) and is to keep midnight happening at
midnight. Because of leap seconds, UTC currently differs from TAI by 37
seconds.

GPS time ticks SI seconds, in lockstep with TAI. GPS time is always
different from TAI time by 19 seconds, this is because the GPS base time
was the UTC time (not the TAI time) in 1980. It is not adjusted for leap
seconds, so every time UTC has a leap second, GPS time difference from
UTC will change by 1 second. (currently 18 seconds difference)

LORAN time ticks in lockstep with TAI, just as GPS time does, but with a
different offset because of a different base date. It differs from TAI
time by 10 seconds and currently differs from UTC by 27 seconds.

Watch UTC, TAI, Loran and GPS time tick together at:
http://leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm

> In GPS the difference reach 4 Cs periods.

Nope. Do not confuse the adjusted signal transmitted with the actual Cs
hyperfine frequency time (SI time). (you still will, deliberately.)

> In TAI it is smaller,

as in exactly zero.

> but still obvious.

Zero is obvious, yes.

> UTC uses TAI seconds, of course.

Meaning SI seconds since that is what TAI uses.
>
>> Physics uses science. The results of science may conflict with "common
>> sense" (Whose common sense, BTW?).
>
> GPS on the other hand, like any engineering, uses common
> sense.

It's common sense to follow standards and science, which is why GPS time
ticks SI seconds and scientists and engineers used relativity in the GPS
design.

>>> - maybe they would be able to make standards
>>> not only perfect, but also a bit usable....
>> Existing time standards are quite good.
>
> Quite good for your idiot gurus and their childish
> games. According to your wannabe standard
> Cs clocks should be set to 9192631770 everywhere.

They are, if they are to tick SI seconds.

> Is 9192631774 of GPS equal to 9192631770, stupid
> Mike?

Well, you are the one parroting "t'=t" even though those different
numbers make it obvious that's not so.

> According to the old definition, announced wrong
> by your idiot scientists - Cs clocks should be set
> to 9192631770 on Earth and 9192631774 on a
> GPS satellite.

Nope. That's not why 9192631774 is used on the satellite.

> And that's exactly how they are set
> by men doing measurements for real, not just in
> gedankens.
>
Because t' != t.

On Sunday, 24 October 2021 at 16:59:50 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/22/2021 2:23 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 22:20:23 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 10/21/2021 10:22 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 15:44:56 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 10/21/2021 8:30 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 14:07:39 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Oh but what does matter is the 12 meters, which you fabricated on your own,
> >>>>>> tying it to a train which you fabricated on your own, because your “thesis”
> >>>>>> is that time durations and relativistic effects associated with 12 meter
> >>>>>> things were too small to measure back in 1905 and so qualified as bad
> >>>>>> science somehow.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So the trolling has everything to do with you fabricating things to try to
> >>>>>> make a false point, which is exactly what political propagandists do just
> >>>>>> to stir the pot.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Odd, poor halfbrain, with second defined as it was in 1905
> >>
> >>>> Are you still claiming that just because they were using the best clock
> >>>> they had at the time, they must continue to use that same clock although
> >>>> much better clocks exist now
> >>>
> >>> And are you still beating your wife, stupid Mike?
> >> I don't see how that quip could apply.
> >
> > Of course you don't, you're just a stupid Mike.
> > So, have you stopped beating your wife or not?
> Why don't you tell us why you are obsessed with the 1905 definition of
> the second and why our current much more accurate definition shouldn't
> be used?

I don't care whether it should or not, and by what criteria.
The fact is - it is not used. Common sense was warning
your idiot gurus.

> > Even assuming it is now - it was not when your idiot guru
> > lived and mumbled; so - up to 1968 (AFAIR) the results
> > of measurement matching his idiocies were just a
> > self-denying nonsense.
> Again, tell us why you consider this relevant.

I don't care whether it is relevant or not. I'm just stating
a simple fact: up to 1968 (AFAIR) the results
of measurement matching the predictions of your
idiot guru - were just a self-denying nonsense.

> TAI ticks SI seconds, 1 tick per 9192631770 cycles of the Cs hyperfine
> frequency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time
"TAI is a weighted average of the time kept by over 400 atomic clocks"
Average (weighted or not) means: during a TAI second some of these
400 clocks tick less, some tick more. It's not impossible, of course, that
some tick exacly 9192631770 - but it's not likely. Sorry, stupid Mike.

> Nope. Do not confuse the adjusted signal transmitted with the actual Cs
> hyperfine frequency time (SI time).

Take your SI time and put it straight into your dumb ass,
where it belongs. All clocks on GPS (ground and satellite)
indicate and measure the same GPS time. Differing
from TAI, afaik, by 19seconds. I Don't know if the synchronization
with TAI is guaranteed, but I would be surprised if it wasn't.
That would make clocks in a ground base matching your
ISO idiocy no more than TAI. The clocks on a satellite
are counting ~9192631774.1 Cs periods per second.
Your ISO is not used anywhere.

> It's common sense to follow standards and science

It surely was. Until your science has announced it "a collection
of prejudices".

, which is why GPS time
> ticks SI seconds

Your moronic lies won't change anything.

> > Cs clocks should be set to 9192631770 everywhere.
> They are, if they are to tick SI seconds.

As they are not to tick your idiocy - they are not set
to 9192631770

> > According to the old definition, announced wrong
> > by your idiot scientists - Cs clocks should be set
> > to 9192631770 on Earth and 9192631774 on a
> > GPS satellite.
> Nope. That's not why 9192631774 is used on the satellite.

So it is used, stupid Mike?

Am 21.10.2021 um 17:56 schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>> What about Newton's science? Perhaps he had a good (for the time, 400
>> years ago) pendulum clock which he used for measuring time in his
>> experiments? We must base all Newtonian science on this clock? What if
>> this clock no longer exists, which is rather likely? What if this clock
>> ran a bit fast or slow and had to be reset to solar time weekly or
>> something? Remember, solar time couldn't be measured to better than a
>> minute, even after adjusting for irregularities such as analemma/time of
>> year, earth orbit, latitude etc. The second wasn't even defined, only
>> pendulum clocks could measure time with enough precision.
>>
>> Or maybe you just don't know the difference between time and a clock is?
>>
>
> Keep in mind that Wozniak is very much in favor of using that which:
>
> - served people well for the longest period of time, like Euclidean
> geometry was for 2000 years. Or, for that matter, geocentrism and the
> belief that the earth is stationary.
>

Geocentrism is as good as any other system, but much more usuable for us
Earthlings then - say - 'Center-of-the-galaxy-centrism'.

> - is understood and accepted by most lay people, not by specialists. Like a
> second being 1/24/60/60 day.

The second IS in FACT derived from the rotation of planet Earth.

The current definition was based on the current state of Earth'
rotation, but only based on a different measuring device than a sun-dial.

But still the second was derived from Earth rotation in the way, you
regard as obsolete.

> - avoids standards, which Woz considers punitive and Soviet-style
> authoritative, and which he is going to naturally rebel for its own sake.
>

RIP USSR.

Absolutely nobody will cry a single tear for this failed socialistic
experiment, which sank into oblivion together with the bunch of
shitheads, who directed it.

TH

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 2:14:15 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:

> >> Whoever wrote 'Principia' was most likely not Newton.

Halley, maybe? He paid for the publication, which helped him to gain immortality and prove that he was not crazy with his comet.

> >> This is a similar phenomenon as Shakespeare. He wrote simply too many books in too few years and too early in life.
> >> So, possibly somethings wrong with the entire story...

There is a movie that explore such possibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(2011_film)

Born around April 1564, between about 1590 (age 26) and 1613, Shakespeare wrote at least 37 plays and collaborated on several
more. His 17 comedies include The Merchant of Venice and Much Ado About Nothing. Among his 10 history plays are Henry V and
Richard III.

His death is estimated on April 1616. There is a curse on his grave at the Church of the Holy Trinity in Stratford-Upon-Avon:
"Good friend for Jesus sake forbeare, To dig the dust enclosed here. Blessed be the man that spares these stones, And
cursed be he that moves my bones."

> Did the Beatles (for instance) actually wrote their songs themselves?
> Did they play the intruments on the recordings and do we hear their real voices?
>
> How could we possibly know?

"The Beatles contracted with Parlophone Co., Ltd. (a subsidiary of EMI) on June 4, 1962 through their manager, Brian Epstein
(NEMS Enterprises, Ltd.). This simple four-page contract granted EMI options to extend it for three consecutive one-year periods,
all of which EMI exercised. The contract was extended by another two years, until 1967. Albums from 1968 to 1970 were on their subsidiary label Apple"..
"EMI Group Limited was a British transnational conglomerate founded in March 1931 in London by the merger of the Columbia
Graphophone Company and the Gramophone Company. Since its first years, EMI electronics research and development was a
vital part in the manufacturing of TV systems, sound systems, electronic tubes, radars, computers and systems for medical imaging.
It played an important role in defense systems during and after WWII".

"Through its powerful worldwide network of subsidiary and affiliate companies and partners in US, EMI played a key role in creating
and sustaining the iconic image of The Beatles in the entire world until 1966, which substantially benefited the post-war economy of
UK. Such development was instrumental for The Beatles to be awarded the MBE (Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire), being the first time that such an award was bestowed upon "pop stars", usually awarded to veterans of war. The award
ceremony was conducted on October 26, 1965, at Buckingham Palace."

"The Beatles' final paid concert of their career took place on 29 August 1966 at Candlestick Park in San Francisco, California. The
band played to an audience of 25,000, leaving 7,000 tickets unsold and marking the end of a disastrous final tour. Three reasons
were key , allegedly, why they stopped playing live: poor sound, exhaustion and unease about their personal security. "

Worldwide, the English rock band the Beatles released 21 studio albums, five live albums, 54 compilation albums, 36 extended play singles, 63 singles, 17 box sets, 22 video albums and 68 music videos. Most of them released originally on Parlophone, and from
1968 to 1970 were on their subsidiary Apple: The White Album (1968), Yellow Submarine and Abbey Road (1969) and Let It Be (1970).

Since the album Rubber Soul (3 December 1965, Parlophone), the complexity of the sound engineering, the increase in musical quality
(which shows contributions from talented musicians with classic formation) and the extensive use of overdubbing and special effects
made impossible for The Beatles to reproduce most of their songs in concerts, which is believed the cause for the end of live concerts.

A cast of doubt has always existed about the incredible musical evolution of the band, being that Lennon and Harrison were not
particularly gifted musicians and that McCartney natural talent is not believed enough for the almost overnight enhancement in
musical quality and complexity. Such talent seems to be much less than credited in McCartney post-Beatles career. None of the
members of the band could read or write music, and never tried to learn.

The drive used by EMI to position The Beatles as icons of pop-music was exceptional for the epoch, and was based on multiple
disciplines, from social sciences, marketing, iconization, merchandising, sound technologies, language and mixture of musical
backgrounds. These mechanisms were adopted by other band's managers and used ever since, with increasing ability by the industry.

The mechanisms for iconization of The Beatles worldwide has many parallelisms in other fields than music, like:

- Einstein in physics.
- Disney in entertainment.
- McDonald's in fast food.
- Coke in sodas.
- Nike in sport shoes.
- Starbucks in coffee.
- Camel and Marlboro in cigarettes.
- Jobs and Apple.
- Musk and Tesla.
- Gates and Microsoft.
- Moore and Intel.
- Fauci and immunology.
- Etc.

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 21.10.2021 um 17:56 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>>> What about Newton's science? Perhaps he had a good (for the time, 400
>>> years ago) pendulum clock which he used for measuring time in his
>>> experiments? We must base all Newtonian science on this clock? What if
>>> this clock no longer exists, which is rather likely? What if this clock
>>> ran a bit fast or slow and had to be reset to solar time weekly or
>>> something? Remember, solar time couldn't be measured to better than a
>>> minute, even after adjusting for irregularities such as analemma/time of
>>> year, earth orbit, latitude etc. The second wasn't even defined, only
>>> pendulum clocks could measure time with enough precision.
>>>
>>> Or maybe you just don't know the difference between time and a clock is?
>>>
>>
>> Keep in mind that Wozniak is very much in favor of using that which:
>>
>> - served people well for the longest period of time, like Euclidean
>> geometry was for 2000 years. Or, for that matter, geocentrism and the
>> belief that the earth is stationary.
>>
>
> Geocentrism is as good as any other system, but much more usuable for us
> Earthlings then - say - 'Center-of-the-galaxy-centrism'.

No, it’s really not as good as any other system. Even if billions
habitually use it.

>
>> - is understood and accepted by most lay people, not by specialists. Like a
>> second being 1/24/60/60 day.
>
> The second IS in FACT derived from the rotation of planet Earth.

Historically, yes. However, the historical source is largely irrelevant. It
is a contemporary standard, which means the basis shifts as the needs and
technology change.

>
> The current definition was based on the current state of Earth'
> rotation, but only based on a different measuring device than a sun-dial.
>
> But still the second was derived from Earth rotation in the way, you
> regard as obsolete.

Not just me, but the body responsible for setting and maintaining the
standard.

>
>
>> - avoids standards, which Woz considers punitive and Soviet-style
>> authoritative, and which he is going to naturally rebel for its own sake.
>>
>
> RIP USSR.
>
> Absolutely nobody will cry a single tear for this failed socialistic
> experiment, which sank into oblivion together with the bunch of
> shitheads, who directed it.
>
>
> TH
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, 25 October 2021 at 15:28:25 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> > But still the second was derived from Earth rotation in the way, you
> > regard as obsolete.
> Not just me, but the body responsible for setting and maintaining the
> standard.

A pity that no real timekeeping system is sharing their opinion.

On 10/25/2021 11:57 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 25 October 2021 at 15:28:25 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> But still the second was derived from Earth rotation in the way, you
>>> regard as obsolete.
>> Not just me, but the body responsible for setting and maintaining the
>> standard.

That's right. Current atomic clocks are more accurate than our good old
wobbly earth. That's why leap seconds are needed once in a while. The
earth is wobbly enough that the need for leap seconds can't be predicted
more than 6 months in advance.
>
> A pity that no real timekeeping system is sharing their opinion.

No time system other than the ones used by scientists for superaccurate
measurements.

On Tuesday, 26 October 2021 at 03:57:24 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/25/2021 11:57 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 25 October 2021 at 15:28:25 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>> But still the second was derived from Earth rotation in the way, you
> >>> regard as obsolete.
> >> Not just me, but the body responsible for setting and maintaining the
> >> standard.
> That's right. Current atomic clocks are more accurate than our good old
> wobbly earth. That's why leap seconds are needed once in a while.

Think, stupid Mike. Why do we NEED and APPLY something that
makes our clocks less accurate and worse?

> > A pity that no real timekeeping system is sharing their opinion.
> No time system other than the ones used by scientists for superaccurate
> measurements.

Anyone can check GPS - using your idiocy would kill the accuracy
of measurements. The only thing your wannabe standard is good
for - is protecting your mad ideology against the common sense
and the reality.

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 4:18:47 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> https://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/IL-publications/sources/Lorentz_Einstein_1920.pdf
>
> I quote some lame excerpts from the translation of his 1919 book:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ..........
> The action of the Royal Society at its meeting in London on November
> 6, in recognizing Dr. Albert Einstein's " theory of relativity " has caused a
> great stir in scientific circles on both sides of the Atlantic.
> ..........
> This striking confirmation has led certain German scientists to assert
> that no scientific discovery of such importance has been made since
> Newton's theory of gravitation was promulgated.
>
> **********************************************************************
> Dr. Einstein, it must be remembered, is a physicist and not an
> astronomer. He developed his theory as a mathematical formula.
> **********************************************************************

<snip>

Not an astronomer indeed. Schwarzschild was a first class astronomer and mathematician.

While being in the WWI russian front, by December 1915, his mathematics probably saved him from became crazy
in that bloody war, where he KILLED PEOPLE AT A DISTANCE:

"In August of 1915, Karl Schwarzschild along with his artillery brigade was assigned to the Tenth Army on the Russian
Front at Kovoso in the present day Lithuania [...]"

"Historian Tilman Sauer has access to a letter Schwarzschild wrote to Arnold Sommerfeld on the same date that he mailed
his solution to Einstein [December 22, 1915]. In the letter to Sommerfeld, Schwarzschild describes hearing canon fire from Hartmannweilerkopf, which is about 10 km from Mulhouse."

"Schwarzschild (on leave from his military duties) attended the meeting of the Prussian Academy of sciences on November
18, 1915 where Einstein presented his theory, using the field equations G_μν=−κT_μν which didn't matter in vacuum."

It took only 1 month for Schwarzschild to find the only exact analytical solution for G_μν = 0 i (it was unique for the next 40 years).

Then, he communicated his solution to Einstein and Sommerfeld. He didn't spare criticisms for Einstein approximation to the
problem of Mercury's perihelion, subject which, as an astronomer, knew perfectly.

Even when his solution for G_μν = 0 remain unchanged (except Hilbert's origin correction in 1917), he DIDN'T ACKNOWLEDGED
Einstein's fudging to get GERBER'S FORMULA.

Of course this aspect is NOT DIVULGED by relativists, whom buried the last part of the published paper where Schwarzchild tried
to save Einstein's ass by MANIPULATING mathematics derived from his solution. But Schwarzschild never attempted to derive a
solution by himself, because he KNEW that it was going to show a RETARDATION instead of an ADVANCE, as it happened with
Einstein 1913, Nordstrom 1914 and many others before and after 1915.

Schwarzchild only left gobbledygook in his point § 6

"§ 6. After all, it is still the movement of a point in the Gravitational fields, the geodetic line belonging
to the line element (14), to be derived."

Follow less than 1 PAGE addressing the subject left unfinished, where he TRIED TO EMULATE Einstein's derivation
but FAILED, as it can be proven by comparing side by side Einstein's and Schwarzdchild's papers.

Einstein final stage (Equation 11): (dx/dφ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x −x² + αx³

Schwarzdchild final stage (Eq. 18): (dx/dφ)² = (1 –h)/c² + hα/c² x −x² + αx³ = 2A/B + α/B x −x² + αx³

Even when Schwarzschild claim them as IDENTICAL, they are FAR FROM IT. Note the difference between B² and B in both equations.
Schwarzschild claim identical expressions, and rapidly let the subject there to focus on:

"Finally, the strict form of the third KEPLER Law for circular paths can be derived.", to which he devotes the final part of his paper.

And he abandoned the problem there, because h = 1, which causes A = 0 and the equation being

(dx/dφ)² = α/c² x −x² + αx³ = x (α/c² −x + αx²)

with two symmetric roots around x = 0 and a third root at x = 0, which has a more trivial solution FAR FROM GERBER'S FORMULA.

Why did Schwarzschild acted like that? My belief is quite simple: Germany at war with UK, France, Russia, etc. and, for a patriot like
Schwarzschild, it WAS NOT THE TIME TO FIX ACCOUNTS with Einstein. He didn't know he was going to DIE 4 months after this.

Had Schwarzschild lived enough, no GR and no Einstein. Probably a much more PHYSICAL theory would have been developed.

He ISSUED clear and diplomatic warnings to Einstein on his published paper (Jan. 1916):

§ 5. Die Eindeutigkeit der Lösung hat sich durch die vorstehende Rechnung von selbst ergeben. Daß es schwer wäre, aus einem
Annäherungsverfahren nach Hrn. Einsteins Art die Eindeutigkeit zu erkennen, sieht man an folgendem: Es hatte sich oben, bevor
noch die Stetigkeitsbedingung herangezogen war, ergeben:

§ 5. The uniqueness of the solution has become through the foregoing calculation by itself.
That it would be difficult to recognize the uniqueness from an approximation method in the manner of Mr. Einstein, as can be seen
from the following: as it had emerged above, without the continuity condition it would have resulted:

FOLLOW MATHEMATICAL CONSEQUENCES......

Some relativist historians HAVE MODIFIED ENTIRELY the meaning of § 5. in English translations, like Abraham (2008):

§5. The uniqueness of this solution follows from the aforementioned calculations.
For one who is troubled with the uniqueness of Einstein’s method, followed from this, we consider
the following example. There above, from the continuity condition, the formula:

REWRITING AND ADAhttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1916SPAW.......189S/abstractPTING THE HISTORY TO THEIR INTERESTS.

It happens all the time, since ever, everywhere and with everything. You MUST TO trace back to the original documentation
(if it exists under proper custody) to fact-check EVERYTHING.

Here is a link to a photographed document of the Schwarzschild paper, in custody at Harvard:

Über das Gravitationsfeld eines Massenpunktes nach der Einsteinschen Theorie

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1916SPAW.......189S/abstract

Am 25.10.2021 um 15:28 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 21.10.2021 um 17:56 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>
>>>> What about Newton's science? Perhaps he had a good (for the time, 400
>>>> years ago) pendulum clock which he used for measuring time in his
>>>> experiments? We must base all Newtonian science on this clock? What if
>>>> this clock no longer exists, which is rather likely? What if this clock
>>>> ran a bit fast or slow and had to be reset to solar time weekly or
>>>> something? Remember, solar time couldn't be measured to better than a
>>>> minute, even after adjusting for irregularities such as analemma/time of
>>>> year, earth orbit, latitude etc. The second wasn't even defined, only
>>>> pendulum clocks could measure time with enough precision.
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe you just don't know the difference between time and a clock is?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Keep in mind that Wozniak is very much in favor of using that which:
>>>
>>> - served people well for the longest period of time, like Euclidean
>>> geometry was for 2000 years. Or, for that matter, geocentrism and the
>>> belief that the earth is stationary.
>>>
>>
>> Geocentrism is as good as any other system, but much more usuable for us
>> Earthlings then - say - 'Center-of-the-galaxy-centrism'.
>
> No, it’s really not as good as any other system. Even if billions
> habitually use it.

I use a system I call 'subjectivism' in connection to relativity.

It goes like this:

the observer is the center of his own frame of reference and equipped
with his own local time.

Matter is (in my modell) a 'timelike stable pattern'.

The inverse to timelike is spacelike.

If both directions are combined, we can create the direction called
'light-like'.

This direction determines the light-cone.

The observer's past light-cone is actually, what the observer would call
'universe'.

So: the universe, the observer's frame and the observer himself depend
on the direction of the axis of time.

This direction defines what I call a 'time-domaine'.

Now, matter is not matter anymore in a different time-domaine, but
radiation, while new matter pops out of nowhere (the other from the
former FoR disappears).

The connection to the problem of geocentrism:

the surface of the planet Earth is (obviously) such a 'time-domaine',
because we can use similar clocks around the globe.

Because we need a universe for our 'time-domain', too, we could actually
base our universe on our home-planet.

We don't need to do so, but geocentrism is much more useful for us
Earthlings than any other system.

....

TH