> 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

Nope, newtonian physics nowhere says that moving things
can't get shorter. You've fabricated this one.

>, 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.

And - that's precisely how good GPS clocks work now.
On the other hand - ISO/Einstein/proper time mode
means time dilation/"good" clocks out of synch, 9 192 631 770
Cs periods per second everywhere, exactly as it was durung
first days.
The switch GPS made was from Einstein mode to Newton
mode.
Of course. Common sense was warning your idiot guru.

On 3/16/2023 4:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> 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,

Nope. Clocks measure time. They can be calibrated any way you want.

>> 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.

Feet to meters is insignificant? A meter is more than three times a foot!

Meanwhile a wobbly rock second is very close to a standard Cs clock
second. But the latter is much more stable, so real scientists use it.
Actually everyone uses it now, as TAI, LORAN, GPS and UTC times are all
based on the Cs second, and all timezones are based on UTC time.

On Thursday, 16 March 2023 at 23:25:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/16/2023 4:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > 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,
> Nope. Clocks measure time. They can be calibrated any way you want.

No, stupid Mike. They can't be calibrated the way
your idiot gurus want, to 9 192 631 770 - GPS
wouldn't work then. No, measuring time is only a
secondary functionality for them. Your idiot gurus
can't see further than the tip of their nose, they
didn't catch the primary one. Clocks are coordinate
generators. You look at them, you read the numbers
they display - you're getting your coordinated position
in time immediately.
I'm a professional in the field of informational
tools and their functionalities, they're not.

> > 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.
> Feet to meters is insignificant?

Yes. Do you feel it is not, stupid Mike?

> A meter is more than three times a foot!
Right. Somehow, it doesn't make the change
significant:(

> Meanwhile a wobbly rock second is very close to a standard Cs clock
> second.

On the surface your idiocy is very close to the real
second, but on a GPS satellite it is not.

> But the latter is much more stable, so real scientists use it.
> Actually everyone uses it now, as TAI, LORAN, GPS and UTC times are all
> based on the Cs second

Nope. Cs second is 9 192 631 770. Everywhere. GPS
second is 9 192 631 770 on Earth, 9 192 631 774
on a satellite.
Sorry, poor trash - you're mistaken. About pretty
everything.

> and all timezones are based on UTC time.
The difference between UTC time and wobby rock
time is never bigger than 1-2 seconds, but the
difference between UTC and TAI is growing
and growing. And TAI second isn't ISO second too,
though the difference is very little here. If TAI
was obeying your idiocy - its clocks wouuldn't
keep sync.

On Friday, 17 March 2023 at 06:50:19 UTC+1, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 March 2023 at 23:25:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > On 3/16/2023 4:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > 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,
> > Nope. Clocks measure time. They can be calibrated any way you want.
> No, stupid Mike. They can't be calibrated the way
> your idiot gurus want, to 9 192 631 770 - GPS
> wouldn't work then.

Anyway - doesn't it surprise you, stupid Mike?
What seemed to be a matter of eternal Laws
of Nature, suddenly became a matter of what
your idiot gurus WANT.

We're FORCED!!! THE BEST WAY!!!! THE NATURE!!!
THE EXPERIMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nope. Nothing but an insane fancy of some insane
symmetry worshipers. No, no fucken way it can
pass.

On 3/17/2023 1:50 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 March 2023 at 23:25:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 3/16/2023 4:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> 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,
>> Nope. Clocks measure time. They can be calibrated any way you want.
>
> No, stupid Mike.

Yes, clown. Anyone anywhere can come up with a new unit of time and
repaint a clock face/change its gears if they want. That even the US
uses the second doesn't change the fact that the second is only a unit
of time not time itself, just like the kilogram is only a unit of mass,
not mass itself,

> They can't be calibrated the way
> your idiot gurus want, to 9 192 631 770 - GPS
> wouldn't work then.

Exactly! Newtonian universal time doesn't work! The GPS prototype's
first 20 days running assuming Newtonian universal time didn't work as
its signal received on earth didn't match one using a divisor of
9,192,631,770! So they had to use Einstein mode with a divisor of
9,192,631,774.1 for it to be received at 9,192,631,770!

> No, measuring time is only a
> secondary functionality for them. Your idiot gurus
> can't see further than the tip of their nose, they
> didn't catch the primary one. Clocks are coordinate
> generators. You look at them, you read the numbers
> they display - you're getting your coordinated position
> in time immediately.

Clocks only measure the time coordinate. They generate nothing other
than some of them generate tick-tick-tick sounds.

> I'm a professional in the field of informational
> tools and their functionalities, they're not.

No, you are a crank pretending to be a professional. And doing a poor
job at it.
>
>
>>> 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.

>> Feet to meters is insignificant?
>
> Yes. Do you feel it is not, stupid Mike?

Why do you believe seconds to very slightly different seconds is
significant?
>
>> A meter is more than three times a foot!

> Right. Somehow, it doesn't make the change
> significant:(

Yet you are hung up on seconds to very slightly different seconds.
>
>> Meanwhile a wobbly rock second is very close to a standard Cs clock
>> second.
>
> On the surface your idiocy is very close to the real
> second, but on a GPS satellite it is not.

If you think there's a difference, then you must agree with the basics
of GR but you don't quite get it. At least you believe the basics of GR!

Regardless, the second at the GPS clock is still 9,192,631,770 Cs cycle
times. The 9,192,631,774.1 timer is so it matches on earth's surface.
>
>> But the latter is much more stable, so real scientists use it.
>> Actually everyone uses it now, as TAI, LORAN, GPS and UTC times are all
>> based on the Cs second
>
> Nope. Cs second is 9 192 631 770. Everywhere.

Very good! But locally.

> GPS second

No such thing.

> is 9 192 631 770 on Earth, 9 192 631 774
> on a satellite.

So you do believe in GR but don't quite get it right.

>> and all timezones are based on UTC time.

> The difference between UTC time and wobby rock
> time is never bigger than 1-2 seconds, but the
> difference between UTC and TAI is growing
> and growing.

Because that wobbly rock is just too wobbly. These days much science
needs a more stable time base than wobbly rock time. The whole reason
for switching to a Cs timebase for the second definition in the first place!

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> I'm a professional in the field of informational
> tools and their functionalities, they're not.

Ah ah ah ah ah ah!

On Friday, 17 March 2023 at 17:48:18 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/17/2023 1:50 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 16 March 2023 at 23:25:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 3/16/2023 4:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> 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,
> >> Nope. Clocks measure time. They can be calibrated any way you want.
> >
> > No, stupid Mike.
> Yes, clown. Anyone anywhere can come up with a new unit of time and

And be ignored, like your bunch of idiots was, clown.

> > They can't be calibrated the way
> > your idiot gurus want, to 9 192 631 770 - GPS
> > wouldn't work then.
> Exactly! Newtonian universal time doesn't work!

9 192 631 770 is not Newtonian universal time.
Newtonian time is 1/86400 of a day second, giving
9 192 631 770 on Earth and 9 192 631 774
on a GPS satellite.
9 192 631 770 is the ISO/proper time idiocy
of your insane gurus. And yours. Of course it
doesn't work, common sense was warning you.

> >>> 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.
>
> >> Feet to meters is insignificant?
> >
> > Yes. Do you feel it is not, stupid Mike?
> Why do you believe seconds to very slightly different seconds is
> significant?

Because seconds of your bunch of idiots -
9 192 631 770 everywhere - don't work, and
seconds of Newton - 9 192 631 770 on Earth
and 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite - do
work. The difference between working and
not working is a significant difference for me.

> >> Meanwhile a wobbly rock second is very close to a standard Cs clock
> >> second.
> >
> > On the surface your idiocy is very close to the real
> > second, but on a GPS satellite it is not.
> If you think there's a difference, then you must agree with the basics
> of GR

No, I don't have to. Only such an idiot as you are
can believe that I do - after all I wrote here during
years.

> Regardless, the second at the GPS clock is still 9,192,631,770 Cs cycle
> times.

No, it is not. It is 9,192,631,774.1. 1/86400 of a day.

> >
> >> But the latter is much more stable, so real scientists use it.
> >> Actually everyone uses it now, as TAI, LORAN, GPS and UTC times are all
> >> based on the Cs second
> >
> > Nope. Cs second is 9 192 631 770. Everywhere.
> Very good! But locally.
>
> > GPS second
>
> No such thing.
> > is 9 192 631 770 on Earth, 9 192 631 774
> > on a satellite.
> So you do believe in GR

No, poor halfbrain, I don't. Does yourt GR shit
say what I do - that second is 9 192 631 774
on a satellite?

> > The difference between UTC time and wobby rock
> > time is never bigger than 1-2 seconds, but the
> > difference between UTC and TAI is growing
> > and growing.
> Because that wobbly rock is just too wobbly.

Because UTC doesn't care about your delusions
completely, while TAI only mostly.

> > And TAI second isn't ISO second too,
> > though the difference is very little here.
> They are *exactly* the same. "TAI second" *IS* the ISO second, and is
> based on a network of Cs clocks.
> > If TAI
> > was obeying your idiocy - its clocks wouuldn't
> > keep sync.
> But they do keep synch,