https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.

So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
times, 20000 times, anything you like.

Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
DARE YOU!!!!" like always.

Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> As seen, the definition of second loved so
> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>
> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
>
> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.

Even for you this argument is especially silly.

If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
then consider the traveling twin using his own local
"Earth clock" or even a whole co-moving copy of the
Solar System with him. That's it.

On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> > As seen, the definition of second loved so
> > much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> > wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> > lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> > 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
> >
> > So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
> > like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
> > the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
> > during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
> > 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
> > times, 20000 times, anything you like.
> >
> > Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
> > so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
> > DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
>
> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,

I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
mumbling inconsistently.
Or wasn't it?

> then consider the traveling twin using his own local
> "Earth clock" or even a whole co-moving copy of the
> Solar System with him. That's it.

Sure, sure. Nurse?
Well, that's what The Shit is doing to the brains of its
victims.

Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>>>
>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
>>>
>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
>> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
>>
>> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
>
> I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
> option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
> mumbling inconsistently.
> Or wasn't it?

Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
only sundials.

>> then consider the traveling twin using his own local
>> "Earth clock" or even a whole co-moving copy of the
>> Solar System with him. That's it.

On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:54:11 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> >>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
> >>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> >>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> >>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> >>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
> >>>
> >>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
> >>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
> >>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
> >>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
> >>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
> >>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
> >>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
> >>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
> >> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
> >>
> >> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
> >
> > I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
> > option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
> > mumbling inconsistently.
> > Or wasn't it?
> Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
> only sundials.

Or wasn't it?
No answer? Of course, poor trash.

And a sundial is a special case of a clock.

Demented kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:54:11 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
>>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
>>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
>>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
>>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
>>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
>>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
>>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
>>>> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
>>>>
>>>> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
>>>
>>> I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
>>> option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
>>> mumbling inconsistently.
>>> Or wasn't it?
>> Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
>> only sundials.
>
> Or wasn't it?

> And a sundial is a special case of a clock.

So you are aware that there were other kind of clocks than
sundial back then, hence using the Earth rotation as a clock
wasn't the only option in 1905, so you argument is particularly
silly even according to your very low intellectual standards.

On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 14:37:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Demented kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:54:11 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> >>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
> >>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> >>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> >>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> >>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
> >>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
> >>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
> >>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
> >>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
> >>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
> >>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
> >>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
> >>>> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
> >>>
> >>> I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
> >>> option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
> >>> mumbling inconsistently.
> >>> Or wasn't it?
> >> Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
> >> only sundials.
> >
> > Or wasn't it?
> > And a sundial is a special case of a clock.
> So you are aware that there were other kind of clocks than
> sundial back then, hence using the Earth rotation as a clock
> wasn't the only option in 1905

How were these clocks calibrated, then?

On 3/13/2023 9:36 AM, Python wrote:
> Demented kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:54:11 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>> Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>>>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>>>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>>>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
>>>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
>>>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
>>>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
>>>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
>>>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
>>>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
>>>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
>>>>> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
>>>>
>>>> I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
>>>> option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
>>>> mumbling inconsistently.
>>>> Or wasn't it?
>>> Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
>>> only sundials.
>>
>> Or wasn't it?
>
>> And a sundial is a special case of a clock.
>
> So you are aware that there were other kind of clocks than
> sundial back then, hence using the Earth rotation as a clock
> wasn't the only option in 1905, so you argument is particularly
> silly even according to your very low intellectual standards.
>
This is one of the better examples of how our janitor doesn't understand
the difference between time and a clock. He thinks the clock called
earth somehow magically controls time rather than measures it, even at
relativistic speeds where the earth clock will be seen as running slow.

And no, Einstein's SR and GR works don't depend on the definition of the
second. The only time that seconds appear is a pair of ratios where
ratios are given as x seconds per second (a pure number).

On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 17:12:55 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/13/2023 9:36 AM, Python wrote:
> > Demented kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:54:11 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>> Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> >>>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
> >>>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> >>>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> >>>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> >>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
> >>>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
> >>>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
> >>>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
> >>>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
> >>>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
> >>>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
> >>>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
> >>>>> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
> >>>> option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
> >>>> mumbling inconsistently.
> >>>> Or wasn't it?
> >>> Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
> >>> only sundials.
> >>
> >> Or wasn't it?
> >
> >> And a sundial is a special case of a clock.
> >
> > So you are aware that there were other kind of clocks than
> > sundial back then, hence using the Earth rotation as a clock
> > wasn't the only option in 1905, so you argument is particularly
> > silly even according to your very low intellectual standards.
> >
> This is one of the better examples of how our janitor doesn't understand

And do you still believe than announced by ISO
morons 9 192 631 770 is some "Newton mode"?
You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike. Even
considering the relativistic standards.

> And no, Einstein's SR and GR works don't depend on the definition of the
> second.

An assertion of a stupid Mike isn't any argument.

But maybe you can point an experiment falsifying
the hypothesis "Einstein's SR and GR works do
depend on the definition of the second".
Can you, stupid Mike?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> As seen, the definition of second loved so
> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>
> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
>
> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.

What nobody wants to admit here is that Albert Einstein used a type of
'Cucoo-Clock'.

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

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 14:37:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Demented kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:54:11 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>>>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>>>>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>>>>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>>>>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>>>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
>>>>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
>>>>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
>>>>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
>>>>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
>>>>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
>>>>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
>>>>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
>>>>>> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
>>>>> option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
>>>>> mumbling inconsistently.
>>>>> Or wasn't it?
>>>> Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
>>>> only sundials.
>>>
>>> Or wasn't it?
>>> And a sundial is a special case of a clock.
>> So you are aware that there were other kind of clocks than
>> sundial back then, hence using the Earth rotation as a clock
>> wasn't the only option in 1905
>
> How were these clocks calibrated, then?

So what? As long as they are calibrated they can be used
by the twins and there is no reason for theses clocks to
say in synch.

On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 10:11:50 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 14:37:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Demented kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:54:11 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> >>>>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
> >>>>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> >>>>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> >>>>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> >>>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
> >>>>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
> >>>>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
> >>>>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
> >>>>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
> >>>>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
> >>>>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
> >>>>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
> >>>>>> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
> >>>>> option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
> >>>>> mumbling inconsistently.
> >>>>> Or wasn't it?
> >>>> Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
> >>>> only sundials.
> >>>
> >>> Or wasn't it?
> >>> And a sundial is a special case of a clock.
> >> So you are aware that there were other kind of clocks than
> >> sundial back then, hence using the Earth rotation as a clock
> >> wasn't the only option in 1905
> >
> > How were these clocks calibrated, then?
> So what?

So, they were calibrated according to Earth-Sun cycles,
without any other option present. And your idiot guru was
mumbling inconsistently against the definitions
he was accepting; that's because he was too stupid
for dealing with definitions. Most guru mysticians
are.

> As long as they are calibrated they can be used
> by the twins and there is no reason for theses clocks to
> say in synch.

As long as they're calibrated to the same, unique source
they have to stay in synch. And, BTW, this source gives
us a nice preferred frame.
Your concept of duplicating solar system just to make
your nonsenses less nonsensical is very interesting, of
course - as an example of what a religious maniac can
invent to protect The Shit he believes.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 10:11:50 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 14:37:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Demented kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:54:11 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>>>>>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>>>>>>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>>>>>>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>>>>>>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>>>>>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
>>>>>>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
>>>>>>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
>>>>>>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
>>>>>>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
>>>>>>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
>>>>>>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
>>>>>>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
>>>>>>>> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
>>>>>>> option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
>>>>>>> mumbling inconsistently.
>>>>>>> Or wasn't it?
>>>>>> Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
>>>>>> only sundials.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or wasn't it?
>>>>> And a sundial is a special case of a clock.
>>>> So you are aware that there were other kind of clocks than
>>>> sundial back then, hence using the Earth rotation as a clock
>>>> wasn't the only option in 1905
>>>
>>> How were these clocks calibrated, then?
>> So what?
>
> So, they were calibrated according to Earth-Sun cycles,
> without any other option present. And your idiot guru was
> mumbling inconsistently against the definitions
> he was accepting; that's because he was too stupid
> for dealing with definitions. Most guru mysticians
> are.
>
>> As long as they are calibrated they can be used
>> by the twins and there is no reason for theses clocks to
>> say in synch.
>
> As long as they're calibrated to the same, unique source
> they have to stay in synch.

Why? Because you say so?

> And, BTW, this source gives us a nice preferred frame.

The solar system's frame of reference frame is in no
way a preferred frame of reference for the travelling
twin.

> Your concept of duplicating solar system just to make
> your nonsenses less nonsensical is very interesting, of
> course - as an example of what a religious maniac can
> invent to protect The Shit he believes.

You should consider it more carefully, it is impractical
(except for hypothetical type III civilizations) but
it the context of your silly claims on Einstein's paper
implicitly relying on the definition of the second
back then it is a very adequate way to point the silliness
of your argument.

On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 13:36:28 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 10:11:50 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 14:37:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> Demented kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:54:11 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>> Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> >>>>>>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
> >>>>>>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> >>>>>>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> >>>>>>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> >>>>>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
> >>>>>>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
> >>>>>>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
> >>>>>>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
> >>>>>>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
> >>>>>>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
> >>>>>>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
> >>>>>>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
> >>>>>>>> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
> >>>>>>> option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
> >>>>>>> mumbling inconsistently.
> >>>>>>> Or wasn't it?
> >>>>>> Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
> >>>>>> only sundials.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or wasn't it?
> >>>>> And a sundial is a special case of a clock.
> >>>> So you are aware that there were other kind of clocks than
> >>>> sundial back then, hence using the Earth rotation as a clock
> >>>> wasn't the only option in 1905
> >>>
> >>> How were these clocks calibrated, then?
> >> So what?
> >
> > So, they were calibrated according to Earth-Sun cycles,
> > without any other option present. And your idiot guru was
> > mumbling inconsistently against the definitions
> > he was accepting; that's because he was too stupid
> > for dealing with definitions. Most guru mysticians
> > are.
> >
> >> As long as they are calibrated they can be used
> >> by the twins and there is no reason for theses clocks to
> >> say in synch.
> >
> > As long as they're calibrated to the same, unique source
> > they have to stay in synch.
> Why? Because you say so?

Because they're counting the same cycles of the
same source, poor halfbrain.

> > And, BTW, this source gives us a nice preferred frame.
> The solar system's frame of reference frame is in no
> way a preferred frame of reference for the travelling
> twin.

Did you ask him?
A religious maniac doesn't have to ask, he just knows
what people prefer. Your idiot guru and yourself are
quite typical about that, aren't you?

But, somehow it is the preferred frame of referrence
for a travelling GPS satellite. And for Glonass, and
for others.

> > Your concept of duplicating solar system just to make
> > your nonsenses less nonsensical is very interesting, of
> > course - as an example of what a religious maniac can
> > invent to protect The Shit he believes.
> You should consider it more carefully, it is impractical
> (except for hypothetical type III civilizations) but
> it the context of your silly claims on Einstein's paper
> implicitly relying on the definition of the second
> back then it is a very adequate way to point the silliness
> of your argument.

It is a great example of - what The Shit has done to
your brain.
And even supposing you could clone Earth and Sun -
sorry, poor halfbrain: the definition was saying "Earth".
Not "Earth or its clone".

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 13:36:28 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 10:11:50 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 14:37:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Demented kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:54:11 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>>>>>>>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>>>>>>>>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>>>>>>>>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>>>>>>>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
>>>>>>>>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
>>>>>>>>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
>>>>>>>>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
>>>>>>>>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
>>>>>>>>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
>>>>>>>>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
>>>>>>>>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
>>>>>>>>>> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
>>>>>>>>> option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
>>>>>>>>> mumbling inconsistently.
>>>>>>>>> Or wasn't it?
>>>>>>>> Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
>>>>>>>> only sundials.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or wasn't it?
>>>>>>> And a sundial is a special case of a clock.
>>>>>> So you are aware that there were other kind of clocks than
>>>>>> sundial back then, hence using the Earth rotation as a clock
>>>>>> wasn't the only option in 1905
>>>>>
>>>>> How were these clocks calibrated, then?
>>>> So what?
>>>
>>> So, they were calibrated according to Earth-Sun cycles,
>>> without any other option present. And your idiot guru was
>>> mumbling inconsistently against the definitions
>>> he was accepting; that's because he was too stupid
>>> for dealing with definitions. Most guru mysticians
>>> are.
>>>
>>>> As long as they are calibrated they can be used
>>>> by the twins and there is no reason for theses clocks to
>>>> say in synch.
>>>
>>> As long as they're calibrated to the same, unique source
>>> they have to stay in synch.
>> Why? Because you say so?
>
> Because they're counting the same cycles of the
> same source, poor halfbrain.
>
>>> And, BTW, this source gives us a nice preferred frame.
>> The solar system's frame of reference frame is in no
>> way a preferred frame of reference for the travelling
>> twin.
>
> Did you ask him?
> A religious maniac doesn't have to ask, he just knows
> what people prefer. Your idiot guru and yourself are
> quite typical about that, aren't you?
>
> But, somehow it is the preferred frame of referrence
> for a travelling GPS satellite. And for Glonass, and
> for others.
>
>>> Your concept of duplicating solar system just to make
>>> your nonsenses less nonsensical is very interesting, of
>>> course - as an example of what a religious maniac can
>>> invent to protect The Shit he believes.
>> You should consider it more carefully, it is impractical
>> (except for hypothetical type III civilizations) but
>> it the context of your silly claims on Einstein's paper
>> implicitly relying on the definition of the second
>> back then it is a very adequate way to point the silliness
>> of your argument.
>
> It is a great example of - what The Shit has done to
> your brain.
> And even supposing you could clone Earth and Sun -
> sorry, poor halfbrain: the definition was saying "Earth".
> Not "Earth or its clone".
>

*facepalm*

On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:29:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 13:36:28 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 10:11:50 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 14:37:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>> Demented kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:54:11 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> >>>>>>>>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
> >>>>>>>>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> >>>>>>>>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> >>>>>>>>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
> >>>>>>>>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
> >>>>>>>>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
> >>>>>>>>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
> >>>>>>>>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
> >>>>>>>>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
> >>>>>>>>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
> >>>>>>>>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
> >>>>>>>>>> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
> >>>>>>>>> option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
> >>>>>>>>> mumbling inconsistently.
> >>>>>>>>> Or wasn't it?
> >>>>>>>> Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
> >>>>>>>> only sundials.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Or wasn't it?
> >>>>>>> And a sundial is a special case of a clock.
> >>>>>> So you are aware that there were other kind of clocks than
> >>>>>> sundial back then, hence using the Earth rotation as a clock
> >>>>>> wasn't the only option in 1905
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How were these clocks calibrated, then?
> >>>> So what?
> >>>
> >>> So, they were calibrated according to Earth-Sun cycles,
> >>> without any other option present. And your idiot guru was
> >>> mumbling inconsistently against the definitions
> >>> he was accepting; that's because he was too stupid
> >>> for dealing with definitions. Most guru mysticians
> >>> are.
> >>>
> >>>> As long as they are calibrated they can be used
> >>>> by the twins and there is no reason for theses clocks to
> >>>> say in synch.
> >>>
> >>> As long as they're calibrated to the same, unique source
> >>> they have to stay in synch.
> >> Why? Because you say so?
> >
> > Because they're counting the same cycles of the
> > same source, poor halfbrain.
> >
> >>> And, BTW, this source gives us a nice preferred frame.
> >> The solar system's frame of reference frame is in no
> >> way a preferred frame of reference for the travelling
> >> twin.
> >
> > Did you ask him?
> > A religious maniac doesn't have to ask, he just knows
> > what people prefer. Your idiot guru and yourself are
> > quite typical about that, aren't you?
> >
> > But, somehow it is the preferred frame of referrence
> > for a travelling GPS satellite. And for Glonass, and
> > for others.
> >
> >>> Your concept of duplicating solar system just to make
> >>> your nonsenses less nonsensical is very interesting, of
> >>> course - as an example of what a religious maniac can
> >>> invent to protect The Shit he believes.
> >> You should consider it more carefully, it is impractical
> >> (except for hypothetical type III civilizations) but
> >> it the context of your silly claims on Einstein's paper
> >> implicitly relying on the definition of the second
> >> back then it is a very adequate way to point the silliness
> >> of your argument.
> >
> > It is a great example of - what The Shit has done to
> > your brain.
> > And even supposing you could clone Earth and Sun -
> > sorry, poor halfbrain: the definition was saying "Earth".
> > Not "Earth or its clone".
> >
> *facepalm*

And The Shit stays inconsistent.

Kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:29:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 13:36:28 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 10:11:50 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 14:37:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> Demented kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:54:11 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
>>>>>>>>>>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
>>>>>>>>>>> option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
>>>>>>>>>>> mumbling inconsistently.
>>>>>>>>>>> Or wasn't it?
>>>>>>>>>> Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
>>>>>>>>>> only sundials.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or wasn't it?
>>>>>>>>> And a sundial is a special case of a clock.
>>>>>>>> So you are aware that there were other kind of clocks than
>>>>>>>> sundial back then, hence using the Earth rotation as a clock
>>>>>>>> wasn't the only option in 1905
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How were these clocks calibrated, then?
>>>>>> So what?
>>>>>
>>>>> So, they were calibrated according to Earth-Sun cycles,
>>>>> without any other option present. And your idiot guru was
>>>>> mumbling inconsistently against the definitions
>>>>> he was accepting; that's because he was too stupid
>>>>> for dealing with definitions. Most guru mysticians
>>>>> are.
>>>>>
>>>>>> As long as they are calibrated they can be used
>>>>>> by the twins and there is no reason for theses clocks to
>>>>>> say in synch.
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as they're calibrated to the same, unique source
>>>>> they have to stay in synch.
>>>> Why? Because you say so?
>>>
>>> Because they're counting the same cycles of the
>>> same source, poor halfbrain.
>>>
>>>>> And, BTW, this source gives us a nice preferred frame.
>>>> The solar system's frame of reference frame is in no
>>>> way a preferred frame of reference for the travelling
>>>> twin.
>>>
>>> Did you ask him?
>>> A religious maniac doesn't have to ask, he just knows
>>> what people prefer. Your idiot guru and yourself are
>>> quite typical about that, aren't you?
>>>
>>> But, somehow it is the preferred frame of referrence
>>> for a travelling GPS satellite. And for Glonass, and
>>> for others.
>>>
>>>>> Your concept of duplicating solar system just to make
>>>>> your nonsenses less nonsensical is very interesting, of
>>>>> course - as an example of what a religious maniac can
>>>>> invent to protect The Shit he believes.
>>>> You should consider it more carefully, it is impractical
>>>> (except for hypothetical type III civilizations) but
>>>> it the context of your silly claims on Einstein's paper
>>>> implicitly relying on the definition of the second
>>>> back then it is a very adequate way to point the silliness
>>>> of your argument.
>>>
>>> It is a great example of - what The Shit has done to
>>> your brain.
>>> And even supposing you could clone Earth and Sun -
>>> sorry, poor halfbrain: the definition was saying "Earth".
>>> Not "Earth or its clone".
>>>
>> *facepalm*
>
> And The Shit stays inconsistent.

And there are no other clocks than sundials. Sure.

You're such an idiot, Maciej, this is beyond decency.

On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:40:01 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:29:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 13:36:28 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 10:11:50 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 14:37:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Demented kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:54:11 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
> >>>>>>>>>>> option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
> >>>>>>>>>>> mumbling inconsistently.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Or wasn't it?
> >>>>>>>>>> Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
> >>>>>>>>>> only sundials.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Or wasn't it?
> >>>>>>>>> And a sundial is a special case of a clock.
> >>>>>>>> So you are aware that there were other kind of clocks than
> >>>>>>>> sundial back then, hence using the Earth rotation as a clock
> >>>>>>>> wasn't the only option in 1905
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How were these clocks calibrated, then?
> >>>>>> So what?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, they were calibrated according to Earth-Sun cycles,
> >>>>> without any other option present. And your idiot guru was
> >>>>> mumbling inconsistently against the definitions
> >>>>> he was accepting; that's because he was too stupid
> >>>>> for dealing with definitions. Most guru mysticians
> >>>>> are.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> As long as they are calibrated they can be used
> >>>>>> by the twins and there is no reason for theses clocks to
> >>>>>> say in synch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As long as they're calibrated to the same, unique source
> >>>>> they have to stay in synch.
> >>>> Why? Because you say so?
> >>>
> >>> Because they're counting the same cycles of the
> >>> same source, poor halfbrain.
> >>>
> >>>>> And, BTW, this source gives us a nice preferred frame.
> >>>> The solar system's frame of reference frame is in no
> >>>> way a preferred frame of reference for the travelling
> >>>> twin.
> >>>
> >>> Did you ask him?
> >>> A religious maniac doesn't have to ask, he just knows
> >>> what people prefer. Your idiot guru and yourself are
> >>> quite typical about that, aren't you?
> >>>
> >>> But, somehow it is the preferred frame of referrence
> >>> for a travelling GPS satellite. And for Glonass, and
> >>> for others.
> >>>
> >>>>> Your concept of duplicating solar system just to make
> >>>>> your nonsenses less nonsensical is very interesting, of
> >>>>> course - as an example of what a religious maniac can
> >>>>> invent to protect The Shit he believes.
> >>>> You should consider it more carefully, it is impractical
> >>>> (except for hypothetical type III civilizations) but
> >>>> it the context of your silly claims on Einstein's paper
> >>>> implicitly relying on the definition of the second
> >>>> back then it is a very adequate way to point the silliness
> >>>> of your argument.
> >>>
> >>> It is a great example of - what The Shit has done to
> >>> your brain.
> >>> And even supposing you could clone Earth and Sun -
> >>> sorry, poor halfbrain: the definition was saying "Earth".
> >>> Not "Earth or its clone".
> >>>
> >> *facepalm*
> >
> > And The Shit stays inconsistent.
> And there are no other clocks than sundials.

A progress. it was "no clocks, just sundials" the last time...
At least you've been taught that a sundial is a clock. No
hope for more, I guess.
But The Shit stays inconsistent.

Sutpid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:40:01 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:29:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 13:36:28 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 10:11:50 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 14:37:16 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Demented kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:54:11 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
>>>>>>>>>>>>> option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mumbling inconsistently.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or wasn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
>>>>>>>>>>>> only sundials.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Or wasn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>> And a sundial is a special case of a clock.
>>>>>>>>>> So you are aware that there were other kind of clocks than
>>>>>>>>>> sundial back then, hence using the Earth rotation as a clock
>>>>>>>>>> wasn't the only option in 1905
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How were these clocks calibrated, then?
>>>>>>>> So what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, they were calibrated according to Earth-Sun cycles,
>>>>>>> without any other option present. And your idiot guru was
>>>>>>> mumbling inconsistently against the definitions
>>>>>>> he was accepting; that's because he was too stupid
>>>>>>> for dealing with definitions. Most guru mysticians
>>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As long as they are calibrated they can be used
>>>>>>>> by the twins and there is no reason for theses clocks to
>>>>>>>> say in synch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As long as they're calibrated to the same, unique source
>>>>>>> they have to stay in synch.
>>>>>> Why? Because you say so?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because they're counting the same cycles of the
>>>>> same source, poor halfbrain.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, BTW, this source gives us a nice preferred frame.
>>>>>> The solar system's frame of reference frame is in no
>>>>>> way a preferred frame of reference for the travelling
>>>>>> twin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you ask him?
>>>>> A religious maniac doesn't have to ask, he just knows
>>>>> what people prefer. Your idiot guru and yourself are
>>>>> quite typical about that, aren't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> But, somehow it is the preferred frame of referrence
>>>>> for a travelling GPS satellite. And for Glonass, and
>>>>> for others.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your concept of duplicating solar system just to make
>>>>>>> your nonsenses less nonsensical is very interesting, of
>>>>>>> course - as an example of what a religious maniac can
>>>>>>> invent to protect The Shit he believes.
>>>>>> You should consider it more carefully, it is impractical
>>>>>> (except for hypothetical type III civilizations) but
>>>>>> it the context of your silly claims on Einstein's paper
>>>>>> implicitly relying on the definition of the second
>>>>>> back then it is a very adequate way to point the silliness
>>>>>> of your argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a great example of - what The Shit has done to
>>>>> your brain.
>>>>> And even supposing you could clone Earth and Sun -
>>>>> sorry, poor halfbrain: the definition was saying "Earth".
>>>>> Not "Earth or its clone".
>>>>>
>>>> *facepalm*
>>>
>>> And The Shit stays inconsistent.
>> And there are no other clocks than sundials.
>
> A progress. it was "no clocks, just sundials" the last time...
> At least you've been taught that a sundial is a clock. No
> hope for more, I guess.
> But The Shit stays inconsistent.

It's not, and you are more ridiculous every single day.

On 3/14/2023 9:54 AM, Python wrote:
> Sutpid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:40:01 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>> Kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:29:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>>>>>> It is a great example of - what The Shit has done to
>>>>>> your brain.
>>>>>> And even supposing you could clone Earth and Sun -
>>>>>> sorry, poor halfbrain: the definition was saying "Earth".
>>>>>> Not "Earth or its clone".
>>>>>>
>>>>> *facepalm*
>>>>
>>>> And The Shit stays inconsistent.
>>> And there are no other clocks than sundials.
>>
>> A progress. it was "no clocks, just sundials" the last time...
>> At least you've been taught that  a sundial is a clock. No
>> hope for more, I guess.
>> But The Shit stays inconsistent.
>
> It's not, and you are more ridiculous every single day.

SR doesn't depend on the definition of the second anyway, just like it
doesn't depend on the definition of the meter. Time is only referenced
as time. The only time that the second itself is referenced is when
calculation of time dilation ratios (twice), which are pure numbers but
derived as seconds per second. Time could be measured in Jupiterean
days, fortnights or whatever. Nothing special about this so-called third
rock from the sun.

On 3/13/2023 12:30 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 17:12:55 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 3/13/2023 9:36 AM, Python wrote:
>>> Demented kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:54:11 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>> Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>>>>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>>>>>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>>>>>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>>>>>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>>>>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
>>>>>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
>>>>>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
>>>>>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
>>>>>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
>>>>>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
>>>>>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
>>>>>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
>>>>>>> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
>>>>>> option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
>>>>>> mumbling inconsistently.
>>>>>> Or wasn't it?
>>>>> Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
>>>>> only sundials.
>>>>
>>>> Or wasn't it?
>>>
>>>> And a sundial is a special case of a clock.
>>>
>>> So you are aware that there were other kind of clocks than
>>> sundial back then, hence using the Earth rotation as a clock
>>> wasn't the only option in 1905, so you argument is particularly
>>> silly even according to your very low intellectual standards.
>>>
>> This is one of the better examples of how our janitor doesn't understand
>
> And do you still believe than announced by ISO
> morons 9 192 631 770 is some "Newton mode"?

Tell us, toilet licker, explain your "not even wrong" claim. How does
the ISO definition of the second have anything to do with whether
Newtonian mechanics or GR mechanics is used?

>> And no, Einstein's SR and GR works don't depend on the definition of the
>> second.
>
> An assertion of a stupid Mike isn't any argument.

Not an assertion. Point out in the 1905 SR paper where the second
definition matters, that is, changing the second to twice its current
value makes something break. Anywhere in the paper.

Or, do the same with general relativity.
>
> But maybe you can point an experiment falsifying
> the hypothesis "Einstein's SR and GR works do
> depend on the definition of the second".
> Can you, stupid Mike?
>
Since the second is not used *anywhere* in the SR paper other than
defining two ratios (pure numbers which don't depend on time units), it
is falsified by examination. Why not ask to falsify, using SR, the
statement "Zebras are just painted horses" ?

On Wednesday, 15 March 2023 at 06:37:23 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/14/2023 9:54 AM, Python wrote:
> > Sutpid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:40:01 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>> Kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:29:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> >>>>>> It is a great example of - what The Shit has done to
> >>>>>> your brain.
> >>>>>> And even supposing you could clone Earth and Sun -
> >>>>>> sorry, poor halfbrain: the definition was saying "Earth".
> >>>>>> Not "Earth or its clone".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> *facepalm*
> >>>>
> >>>> And The Shit stays inconsistent.
> >>> And there are no other clocks than sundials.
> >>
> >> A progress. it was "no clocks, just sundials" the last time...
> >> At least you've been taught that a sundial is a clock. No
> >> hope for more, I guess.
> >> But The Shit stays inconsistent.
> >
> > It's not, and you are more ridiculous every single day.
> SR doesn't depend on the definition of the second anyway

An assertion af a stupid Mike is no argument, see.
Any experimental evidence?

On Wednesday, 15 March 2023 at 06:47:33 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/13/2023 12:30 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 17:12:55 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 3/13/2023 9:36 AM, Python wrote:
> >>> Demented kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:54:11 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>> Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> >>>>>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
> >>>>>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> >>>>>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> >>>>>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> >>>>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
> >>>>>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
> >>>>>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
> >>>>>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
> >>>>>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
> >>>>>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
> >>>>>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
> >>>>>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
> >>>>>>> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
> >>>>>> option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
> >>>>>> mumbling inconsistently.
> >>>>>> Or wasn't it?
> >>>>> Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
> >>>>> only sundials.
> >>>>
> >>>> Or wasn't it?
> >>>
> >>>> And a sundial is a special case of a clock.
> >>>
> >>> So you are aware that there were other kind of clocks than
> >>> sundial back then, hence using the Earth rotation as a clock
> >>> wasn't the only option in 1905, so you argument is particularly
> >>> silly even according to your very low intellectual standards.
> >>>
> >> This is one of the better examples of how our janitor doesn't understand
> >
> > And do you still believe than announced by ISO
> > morons 9 192 631 770 is some "Newton mode"?
> Tell us, toilet licker, explain your "not even wrong" claim. How does

Not mine, yours, wanna quoting?

> Not an assertion. Point out in the 1905 SR paper where the second
> definition matters,

Every place your idiot guru mentioned a clock, clocks
or time (defined by him as "what clocks indicate").
It happens they're closely related to second, and
the definition of second is determining their
performance. No surprise, of course, that such
an idiot can't get it.

On 3/15/2023 2:41 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 March 2023 at 06:47:33 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 3/13/2023 12:30 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 17:12:55 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2023 9:36 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>> Demented kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:54:11 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>>>>>>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>>>>>>>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>>>>>>>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>>>>>>>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>>>>>>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
>>>>>>>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
>>>>>>>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
>>>>>>>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
>>>>>>>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
>>>>>>>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
>>>>>>>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
>>>>>>>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
>>>>>>>>> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
>>>>>>>> option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
>>>>>>>> mumbling inconsistently.
>>>>>>>> Or wasn't it?
>>>>>>> Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
>>>>>>> only sundials.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or wasn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>>> And a sundial is a special case of a clock.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are aware that there were other kind of clocks than
>>>>> sundial back then, hence using the Earth rotation as a clock
>>>>> wasn't the only option in 1905, so you argument is particularly
>>>>> silly even according to your very low intellectual standards.
>>>>>
>>>> This is one of the better examples of how our janitor doesn't understand
>>>
>>> And do you still believe than announced by ISO
>>> morons 9 192 631 770 is some "Newton mode"?
>> Tell us, toilet licker, explain your "not even wrong" claim. How does
>
> Not mine, yours, wanna quoting?

I already know what you are misunderstanding. You don't understand that
Newton mode simply means no length contraction, no time dilation, none
of the stuff Einstein came up with starting in 1905 All good clocks tick
in synch and always show the same time. I have no idea of what you think
of the ISO second definition, it's just using a better clock than the earth.
>
>> Not an assertion. Point out in the 1905 SR paper where the second
>> definition matters,
>
> Every place your idiot guru mentioned a clock, clocks
> or time (defined by him as "what clocks indicate").

But he doesn't mention the second anywhere. You don't understand the
difference between time and the measure of time.

In the US length is measured in feet. You use meters. Does travel from
Poland to the US change the laws of physics because feet are used in the
US, other than the values in the different unit (such as the speed of
light being 186,282 miles/second)? If so, why?

> It happens they're closely related to second, and
> the definition of second is determining their
> performance.

Nope. Again you don't know the difference between time and a unit used
to measure time. There's nothing wrong with a clock that ticks off
microfortnights or something.

> No surprise, of course, that such
> an idiot can't get it.
>
But nobody expects more from a janitor such as yourself.

On Thursday, 16 March 2023 at 08:03:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/15/2023 2:41 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 15 March 2023 at 06:47:33 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 3/13/2023 12:30 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 17:12:55 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 3/13/2023 9:36 AM, Python wrote:
> >>>>> Demented kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:54:11 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>> Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> >>>>>>>>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
> >>>>>>>>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> >>>>>>>>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> >>>>>>>>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> >>>>>>>>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
> >>>>>>>>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
> >>>>>>>>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
> >>>>>>>>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
> >>>>>>>>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
> >>>>>>>>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
> >>>>>>>>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
> >>>>>>>>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
> >>>>>>>>> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
> >>>>>>>> option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
> >>>>>>>> mumbling inconsistently.
> >>>>>>>> Or wasn't it?
> >>>>>>> Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
> >>>>>>> only sundials.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Or wasn't it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> And a sundial is a special case of a clock.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So you are aware that there were other kind of clocks than
> >>>>> sundial back then, hence using the Earth rotation as a clock
> >>>>> wasn't the only option in 1905, so you argument is particularly
> >>>>> silly even according to your very low intellectual standards.
> >>>>>
> >>>> This is one of the better examples of how our janitor doesn't understand
> >>>
> >>> And do you still believe than announced by ISO
> >>> morons 9 192 631 770 is some "Newton mode"?
> >> Tell us, toilet licker, explain your "not even wrong" claim. How does
> >
> > Not mine, yours, wanna quoting?
> I already know what you are misunderstanding. You don't understand that
> Newton mode simply means no length contraction, no time dilation, none
> of the stuff Einstein came up with starting in 1905 All good clocks tick
> in synch and always show the same time. I have no idea of what you think
> of the ISO second definition, it's just using a better clock than the earth.
> >
> >> Not an assertion. Point out in the 1905 SR paper where the second
> >> definition matters,
> >
> > Every place your idiot guru mentioned a clock, clocks
> > or time (defined by him as "what clocks indicate").
> But he doesn't mention the second anywhere.

So what? Clocks are depending on seconds, that's
simply how things are, and whether physicists and their
minions are too stupid to realize or don't mention
it for other reasons - changes nothing; they still
are.

> Poland to the US change the laws of physics because feet are used in the
> US, other than the values in the different unit (such as the speed of
> light being 186,282 miles/second)?

Changes, in general, sometimes are insignificant -
there are many examples - and sometimes are very
significant - there are also many examples.
It depends what, precisely, they are, stupid Mike.

Only such an idiot as you are can argument, that
changes mus be always insignificant because of
some examples of insignificant changes.

> > It happens they're closely related to second, and
> > the definition of second is determining their
> > performance.
> Nope.

An assertion of a stupid Mike is not any argument.
And if clocks of GPS were set to 9 192 631 770, like
the definition of your bunch of idiots require - GPS
simply wouldn't work and wouldn't measure what
it's expected to measure, stupid Mike. Thus, if we
set the clocks back to your ISO/proper time idiocy
from Newton mode they're working now - it would
be a significant change, wouldn't it?

> to measure time. There's nothing wrong with a clock that ticks off
> microfortnights or something.

There is something wrong, however, if a clock ticks
at 9 192 631 770 ISO definition; that makes it unusable,
stupid Mike.
What a surprise, isn't it?