Am 14.07.2023 um 07:16 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:12:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 13.07.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Volney:
>>
>>>>> The definition of the second has no bearing on special relativity
>>>>> because the definition of the second is not used in the special
>>>>> relativity papers.
>>>>
>>>> But it has bearing on the physics of your idiot guru and his minions
>>>> because it was used in the physics of your idiot guru and his
>>>> minions.
>>>
>>> No, it is just time. No units referenced or used in the SR papers.
>> No, actually Einstein used two numerical values with a unit in 'On the
>> electrodynamics of moving bodies':
>>
>> 1 cm
>> 1 dyne
>>
>> (Both in the same line)
>>
>> No other values with a unit were mentioned.
>
> But "a clock" is mentioned there, isn't it?
> What is a clock?
>
Einstein wrote actually about his watch. A watch is a tiny machine, wich
counts rotations of a tiny rotor and shows the result of that counting
in a human-readable form.

But that watch does not operate by using units of any kind.

The units stem from your interpretation of the signs on the watch face
and the movements of the hands.

TH

On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 06:45:31 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 14.07.2023 um 07:16 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:12:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 13.07.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Volney:
> >>
> >>>>> The definition of the second has no bearing on special relativity
> >>>>> because the definition of the second is not used in the special
> >>>>> relativity papers.
> >>>>
> >>>> But it has bearing on the physics of your idiot guru and his minions
> >>>> because it was used in the physics of your idiot guru and his
> >>>> minions.
> >>>
> >>> No, it is just time. No units referenced or used in the SR papers.
> >> No, actually Einstein used two numerical values with a unit in 'On the
> >> electrodynamics of moving bodies':
> >>
> >> 1 cm
> >> 1 dyne
> >>
> >> (Both in the same line)
> >>
> >> No other values with a unit were mentioned.
> >
> > But "a clock" is mentioned there, isn't it?
> > What is a clock?
> >
> Einstein wrote actually about his watch. A watch is a tiny machine, wich
> counts rotations of a tiny rotor and shows the result of that counting
> in a human-readable form.

No. What you describe is a "stopwatch". such device is
a bit similiar to a clock and can be considered as a
special case of a clock. But it's not quite a clock and
has even a different name.

>
> But that watch does not operate by using units of any kind.

Even a stopwatch does.

>
> The units stem from your interpretation of the signs on the watch face
> and the movements of the hands.

:)

Am 15.07.2023 um 07:14 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 06:45:31 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 14.07.2023 um 07:16 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:12:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 13.07.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Volney:
>>>>
>>>>>>> The definition of the second has no bearing on special relativity
>>>>>>> because the definition of the second is not used in the special
>>>>>>> relativity papers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it has bearing on the physics of your idiot guru and his minions
>>>>>> because it was used in the physics of your idiot guru and his
>>>>>> minions.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is just time. No units referenced or used in the SR papers.
>>>> No, actually Einstein used two numerical values with a unit in 'On the
>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies':
>>>>
>>>> 1 cm
>>>> 1 dyne
>>>>
>>>> (Both in the same line)
>>>>
>>>> No other values with a unit were mentioned.
>>>
>>> But "a clock" is mentioned there, isn't it?
>>> What is a clock?
>>>
>> Einstein wrote actually about his watch. A watch is a tiny machine, wich
>> counts rotations of a tiny rotor and shows the result of that counting
>> in a human-readable form.
>
> No. What you describe is a "stopwatch". such device is
> a bit similiar to a clock and can be considered as a
> special case of a clock. But it's not quite a clock and
> has even a different name.

No quite...

What I wrote about is a common watch of the days of Einstein, which were
mainly worn in the pocket (other than wrist-watches).

TH

On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 07:00:44 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 15.07.2023 um 07:14 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> > On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 06:45:31 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 14.07.2023 um 07:16 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:12:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Am 13.07.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Volney:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> The definition of the second has no bearing on special relativity
> >>>>>>> because the definition of the second is not used in the special
> >>>>>>> relativity papers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But it has bearing on the physics of your idiot guru and his minions
> >>>>>> because it was used in the physics of your idiot guru and his
> >>>>>> minions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, it is just time. No units referenced or used in the SR papers.
> >>>> No, actually Einstein used two numerical values with a unit in 'On the
> >>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies':
> >>>>
> >>>> 1 cm
> >>>> 1 dyne
> >>>>
> >>>> (Both in the same line)
> >>>>
> >>>> No other values with a unit were mentioned.
> >>>
> >>> But "a clock" is mentioned there, isn't it?
> >>> What is a clock?
> >>>
> >> Einstein wrote actually about his watch. A watch is a tiny machine, wich
> >> counts rotations of a tiny rotor and shows the result of that counting
> >> in a human-readable form.
> >
> > No. What you describe is a "stopwatch". such device is
> > a bit similiar to a clock and can be considered as a
> > special case of a clock. But it's not quite a clock and
> > has even a different name.
> No quite...
>
> What I wrote about is a common watch of the days of Einstein, which were
> mainly worn in the pocket (other than wrist-watches).

So you've described it incorrectly.
Do you see some difference between a watch and
a stopwatch?

Am 16.07.2023 um 07:04 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 07:00:44 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 15.07.2023 um 07:14 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>> On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 06:45:31 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 14.07.2023 um 07:16 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:12:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> Am 13.07.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Volney:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The definition of the second has no bearing on special relativity
>>>>>>>>> because the definition of the second is not used in the special
>>>>>>>>> relativity papers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it has bearing on the physics of your idiot guru and his minions
>>>>>>>> because it was used in the physics of your idiot guru and his
>>>>>>>> minions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it is just time. No units referenced or used in the SR papers.
>>>>>> No, actually Einstein used two numerical values with a unit in 'On the
>>>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies':
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1 cm
>>>>>> 1 dyne
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Both in the same line)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No other values with a unit were mentioned.
>>>>>
>>>>> But "a clock" is mentioned there, isn't it?
>>>>> What is a clock?
>>>>>
>>>> Einstein wrote actually about his watch. A watch is a tiny machine, wich
>>>> counts rotations of a tiny rotor and shows the result of that counting
>>>> in a human-readable form.
>>>
>>> No. What you describe is a "stopwatch". such device is
>>> a bit similiar to a clock and can be considered as a
>>> special case of a clock. But it's not quite a clock and
>>> has even a different name.
>> No quite...
>>
>> What I wrote about is a common watch of the days of Einstein, which were
>> mainly worn in the pocket (other than wrist-watches).
>
> So you've described it incorrectly.
> Do you see some difference between a watch and
> a stopwatch?
>

Yes, but Einstein wrote 'my watch', not 'my stopwatch'.

TH

On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:30:17 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 16.07.2023 um 07:04 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> > On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 07:00:44 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 15.07.2023 um 07:14 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>> On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 06:45:31 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Am 14.07.2023 um 07:16 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>>> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:12:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>> Am 13.07.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Volney:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The definition of the second has no bearing on special relativity
> >>>>>>>>> because the definition of the second is not used in the special
> >>>>>>>>> relativity papers.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But it has bearing on the physics of your idiot guru and his minions
> >>>>>>>> because it was used in the physics of your idiot guru and his
> >>>>>>>> minions.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No, it is just time. No units referenced or used in the SR papers.
> >>>>>> No, actually Einstein used two numerical values with a unit in 'On the
> >>>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies':
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1 cm
> >>>>>> 1 dyne
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (Both in the same line)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No other values with a unit were mentioned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But "a clock" is mentioned there, isn't it?
> >>>>> What is a clock?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Einstein wrote actually about his watch. A watch is a tiny machine, wich
> >>>> counts rotations of a tiny rotor and shows the result of that counting
> >>>> in a human-readable form.
> >>>
> >>> No. What you describe is a "stopwatch". such device is
> >>> a bit similiar to a clock and can be considered as a
> >>> special case of a clock. But it's not quite a clock and
> >>> has even a different name.
> >> No quite...
> >>
> >> What I wrote about is a common watch of the days of Einstein, which were
> >> mainly worn in the pocket (other than wrist-watches).
> >
> > So you've described it incorrectly.
> > Do you see some difference between a watch and
> > a stopwatch?
> >
> Yes, but Einstein wrote 'my watch', not 'my stopwatch'.

And what you're describing is a stopwatch, not a watch.
Neither Einstein knew, what a clock/watch really is, nor
you do.
The purpose of a clocks is not counting any cycles, it is -
indicating a serie of numbers from outside of your tale
of your delusional Laws of Nature. I.e. indicating time.

Am 16.07.2023 um 09:57 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:30:17 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 16.07.2023 um 07:04 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>> On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 07:00:44 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 15.07.2023 um 07:14 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>> On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 06:45:31 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> Am 14.07.2023 um 07:16 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>>>> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:12:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am 13.07.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Volney:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The definition of the second has no bearing on special relativity
>>>>>>>>>>> because the definition of the second is not used in the special
>>>>>>>>>>> relativity papers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But it has bearing on the physics of your idiot guru and his minions
>>>>>>>>>> because it was used in the physics of your idiot guru and his
>>>>>>>>>> minions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, it is just time. No units referenced or used in the SR papers.
>>>>>>>> No, actually Einstein used two numerical values with a unit in 'On the
>>>>>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies':
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1 cm
>>>>>>>> 1 dyne
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Both in the same line)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No other values with a unit were mentioned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But "a clock" is mentioned there, isn't it?
>>>>>>> What is a clock?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein wrote actually about his watch. A watch is a tiny machine, wich
>>>>>> counts rotations of a tiny rotor and shows the result of that counting
>>>>>> in a human-readable form.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. What you describe is a "stopwatch". such device is
>>>>> a bit similiar to a clock and can be considered as a
>>>>> special case of a clock. But it's not quite a clock and
>>>>> has even a different name.
>>>> No quite...
>>>>
>>>> What I wrote about is a common watch of the days of Einstein, which were
>>>> mainly worn in the pocket (other than wrist-watches).
>>>
>>> So you've described it incorrectly.
>>> Do you see some difference between a watch and
>>> a stopwatch?
>>>
>> Yes, but Einstein wrote 'my watch', not 'my stopwatch'.
>
> And what you're describing is a stopwatch, not a watch.
> Neither Einstein knew, what a clock/watch really is, nor
> you do.
> The purpose of a clocks is not counting any cycles, it is -
> indicating a serie of numbers from outside of your tale
> of your delusional Laws of Nature. I.e. indicating time.
>

???

An early 20th century watch didn't show numbers, but such watches had
hands, which rotated slowly around.

They also unable to start and stop and then show the elapsed time.

Such watches are called 'chronographs' and were invented later.

Common watches had a tiny rotor in it and its rotations were actually
counted by kind of 'gearbox', which made slow hands-movents out of
rotations of the rotor.

In effect the rotations were counted. That was not really a counting
process, but the gears turned fast rotations of the rotor into slow
rotations of the hands.

TH

On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 07:02:29 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 16.07.2023 um 09:57 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> > On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:30:17 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 16.07.2023 um 07:04 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>> On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 07:00:44 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Am 15.07.2023 um 07:14 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>>> On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 06:45:31 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>> Am 14.07.2023 um 07:16 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:12:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Am 13.07.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Volney:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The definition of the second has no bearing on special relativity
> >>>>>>>>>>> because the definition of the second is not used in the special
> >>>>>>>>>>> relativity papers.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But it has bearing on the physics of your idiot guru and his minions
> >>>>>>>>>> because it was used in the physics of your idiot guru and his
> >>>>>>>>>> minions.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No, it is just time. No units referenced or used in the SR papers.
> >>>>>>>> No, actually Einstein used two numerical values with a unit in 'On the
> >>>>>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies':
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1 cm
> >>>>>>>> 1 dyne
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (Both in the same line)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No other values with a unit were mentioned.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But "a clock" is mentioned there, isn't it?
> >>>>>>> What is a clock?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Einstein wrote actually about his watch. A watch is a tiny machine, wich
> >>>>>> counts rotations of a tiny rotor and shows the result of that counting
> >>>>>> in a human-readable form.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No. What you describe is a "stopwatch". such device is
> >>>>> a bit similiar to a clock and can be considered as a
> >>>>> special case of a clock. But it's not quite a clock and
> >>>>> has even a different name.
> >>>> No quite...
> >>>>
> >>>> What I wrote about is a common watch of the days of Einstein, which were
> >>>> mainly worn in the pocket (other than wrist-watches).
> >>>
> >>> So you've described it incorrectly.
> >>> Do you see some difference between a watch and
> >>> a stopwatch?
> >>>
> >> Yes, but Einstein wrote 'my watch', not 'my stopwatch'.
> >
> > And what you're describing is a stopwatch, not a watch.
> > Neither Einstein knew, what a clock/watch really is, nor
> > you do.
> > The purpose of a clocks is not counting any cycles, it is -
> > indicating a serie of numbers from outside of your tale
> > of your delusional Laws of Nature. I.e. indicating time.
> >
> ???
>
>
> An early 20th century watch didn't show numbers

08:56:33. Sounds familiar?
https://allegro.pl/oferta/okazaly-secesyjny-zegar-linkowy-gustav-becker-13983469447
Small one shows one. Big hand another (after an
easy conversion). If second hand is present, it
shows third.

2023-07-17 08:56:33 is the full time signature,
but the clocks are responsible for its less
significant part only.

> They also unable to start and stop and then show the elapsed time.

Right.

> Common watches had a tiny rotor in it and its rotations were actually
> counted by kind of 'gearbox', which made slow hands-movents out of
> rotations of the rotor.
> In effect the rotations were counted.

They were. So? If a windmill is waving its hands, is that
what its purpose is - waving hands?
Counting cycles is - for a clock - the easiest way of doing
what it is supposed to do (displaying expected numbers)
with usually a good precision. That's all.

Am 17.07.2023 um 08:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

>
>> Common watches had a tiny rotor in it and its rotations were actually
>> counted by kind of 'gearbox', which made slow hands-movents out of
>> rotations of the rotor.
>> In effect the rotations were counted.
>
> They were. So? If a windmill is waving its hands, is that
> what its purpose is - waving hands?

Whatever you take, you should consume less....

TH

On Tuesday, 18 July 2023 at 08:03:53 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 17.07.2023 um 08:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>
> >
> >> Common watches had a tiny rotor in it and its rotations were actually
> >> counted by kind of 'gearbox', which made slow hands-movents out of
> >> rotations of the rotor.
> >> In effect the rotations were counted.
> >
> > They were. So? If a windmill is waving its hands, is that
> > what its purpose is - waving hands?
> Whatever you take, you should consume less....

Whatever I take, it's not the reason why you can't
answer a simple question.

Am 18.07.2023 um 08:41 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> On Tuesday, 18 July 2023 at 08:03:53 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 17.07.2023 um 08:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>
>>>
>>>> Common watches had a tiny rotor in it and its rotations were actually
>>>> counted by kind of 'gearbox', which made slow hands-movents out of
>>>> rotations of the rotor.
>>>> In effect the rotations were counted.
>>>
>>> They were. So? If a windmill is waving its hands, is that
>>> what its purpose is - waving hands?
>> Whatever you take, you should consume less....
>
> Whatever I take, it's not the reason why you can't
> answer a simple question.
>
Of course I could answer the question of the purposes for a wind-mill:

usually milling

This is actually not always the case, since many wind-mills are used for
other purposes like as living space or to house a museum.

TH

On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 07:42:15 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.07.2023 um 08:41 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> > On Tuesday, 18 July 2023 at 08:03:53 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 17.07.2023 um 08:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> Common watches had a tiny rotor in it and its rotations were actually
> >>>> counted by kind of 'gearbox', which made slow hands-movents out of
> >>>> rotations of the rotor.
> >>>> In effect the rotations were counted.
> >>>
> >>> They were. So? If a windmill is waving its hands, is that
> >>> what its purpose is - waving hands?
> >> Whatever you take, you should consume less....
> >
> > Whatever I take, it's not the reason why you can't
> > answer a simple question.
> >
> Of course I could answer the question of the purposes for a wind-mill:
>
> usually milling

So: [x] is doing [y] doesn't mean [y] is the purpose
of [x]. Right?
That [most of] clocks are counting some cycles
doesn't mean it's their purpose. We already have
clocks not counting any cycles, BTW. They're just
displaying some values they're receiving from the
net, or by radio.

Am 19.07.2023 um 07:52 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 07:42:15 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 18.07.2023 um 08:41 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>> On Tuesday, 18 July 2023 at 08:03:53 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 17.07.2023 um 08:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Common watches had a tiny rotor in it and its rotations were actually
>>>>>> counted by kind of 'gearbox', which made slow hands-movents out of
>>>>>> rotations of the rotor.
>>>>>> In effect the rotations were counted.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were. So? If a windmill is waving its hands, is that
>>>>> what its purpose is - waving hands?
>>>> Whatever you take, you should consume less....
>>>
>>> Whatever I take, it's not the reason why you can't
>>> answer a simple question.
>>>
>> Of course I could answer the question of the purposes for a wind-mill:
>>
>> usually milling
>
> So: [x] is doing [y] doesn't mean [y] is the purpose
> of [x]. Right?
> That [most of] clocks are counting some cycles
> doesn't mean it's their purpose. We already have
> clocks not counting any cycles, BTW. They're just
> displaying some values they're receiving from the
> net, or by radio.
>

I wrote:
"An early 20th century watch didn't show numbers..."

Therefore, I was talking about the clocks in Einstein's paper and not
about clocks per se.

You are in fact right and many clocks don't have hands, but show time on
some sort of digital display or use other means.

But not so in Einstein's time, where clocks usually had hands.

Many clocks today have also other vibrfators inside than in those days,
like quarz cristalls or whatever advanced means are used.

But the quarz watch wasn't invented in 1905.

TH

On Thursday, 20 July 2023 at 07:43:13 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 19.07.2023 um 07:52 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> > On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 07:42:15 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 18.07.2023 um 08:41 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>> On Tuesday, 18 July 2023 at 08:03:53 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Am 17.07.2023 um 08:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Common watches had a tiny rotor in it and its rotations were actually
> >>>>>> counted by kind of 'gearbox', which made slow hands-movents out of
> >>>>>> rotations of the rotor.
> >>>>>> In effect the rotations were counted.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They were. So? If a windmill is waving its hands, is that
> >>>>> what its purpose is - waving hands?
> >>>> Whatever you take, you should consume less....
> >>>
> >>> Whatever I take, it's not the reason why you can't
> >>> answer a simple question.
> >>>
> >> Of course I could answer the question of the purposes for a wind-mill:
> >>
> >> usually milling
> >
> > So: [x] is doing [y] doesn't mean [y] is the purpose
> > of [x]. Right?
> > That [most of] clocks are counting some cycles
> > doesn't mean it's their purpose. We already have
> > clocks not counting any cycles, BTW. They're just
> > displaying some values they're receiving from the
> > net, or by radio.
> >
> I wrote:
> "An early 20th century watch didn't show numbers..."

You wrote, indeed. And some other nonsenses as well.
They did, that's what the hands were for - to indicate
numbers.

Thomas Heger wrote:

> I wrote:
> "An early 20th century watch didn't show numbers..."
>
> Therefore, I was talking about the clocks in Einstein's paper and not
> about clocks per se.

💩💩💩💩💩💩 your country is a shithole, ran by 100% idiots.

Please Russia sink any and all ships attempting to transit into Odessa. If they are British warships all the better!. They are lying inbreed terrorist criminals, from the head of state, down to the lowest inbreed level. Here is the proof.

𝗕𝗔𝗟𝗧𝗢𝗣𝗦22 (aka 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶_𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼 𝘽𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙞𝙘_𝙊𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨_𝙮𝙚𝙖𝙧_2022)

These countries will exercise 𝗮_𝗺𝘆𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗱_𝗼𝗳_𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀, demonstrating the
𝗶𝗻𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗳𝗹𝗲𝘅𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗼𝗳_𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀. Exercise scenarios include
amphibious, gunnery, 𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗲, air defense, and
𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, as well as 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹,
𝘂𝗻𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘄𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 and 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝘃𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲_𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀, and medical responses.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/06/baltops-2023-exercise-kicks-off-in-the-baltic-sea/

On 7/20/2023 1:24 AM, 💩💩💩💩💩💩 wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>> "An early 20th century watch didn't show numbers..."
>>
>> Therefore, I was talking about the clocks in Einstein's paper and not
>> about clocks per se.
>
> 💩💩💩💩💩💩 your country is a shithole, ran by 100% idiots.
>
> Please Russia sink any and all ships attempting to transit into Odessa. If they are British warships all the better!. They are lying inbreed terrorist criminals, from the head of state, down to the lowest inbreed level. Here is the proof.
[...]

What would happen if Russia launched, say, 42 hyper sonic state of the
art anti ship missiles at a single US carrier?

On 7/20/2023 1:24 AM, 💩💩💩💩💩💩 wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>> "An early 20th century watch didn't show numbers..."
>>
>> Therefore, I was talking about the clocks in Einstein's paper and not
>> about clocks per se.
>
> 💩💩💩💩💩💩 your country is a shithole, ran by 100% idiots.
>
> Please Russia sink any and all ships attempting to transit into Odessa. If they are British warships all the better!. They are lying inbreed terrorist criminals, from the head of state, down to the lowest inbreed level. Here is the proof.
>
> 𝗕𝗔𝗟𝗧𝗢𝗣𝗦22 (aka 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶_𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼 𝘽𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙞𝙘_𝙊𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨_𝙮𝙚𝙖𝙧_2022)
>
> These countries will exercise 𝗮_𝗺𝘆𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗱_𝗼𝗳_𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀, demonstrating the
> 𝗶𝗻𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗳𝗹𝗲𝘅𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗼𝗳_𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀. Exercise scenarios include
> amphibious, gunnery, 𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗲, air defense, and
> 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, as well as 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹,
> 𝘂𝗻𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘄𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 and 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝘃𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲_𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀, and medical responses.
> https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/06/baltops-2023-exercise-kicks-off-in-the-baltic-sea/

These are launched from jets:

https://youtu.be/rY7v21Zy1yE?t=43

42 land based anti ship hardcore advanced hypersonic anti-ship missiles
mixed with an intense suicide air mission with many aircraft equipped
with anti-ship missiles launched against a _single_ US carrier... Think
if our most advanced harpoon anti ship missiles sniffed enough blow to
slaughter a herd of elephants...

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

>> 💩💩💩💩💩💩 your country is a shithole, ran by 100% idiots.
>>
>> Please Russia sink any and all ships attempting to transit into Odessa.
>> If they are British warships all the better!. They are lying inbreed
>> terrorist criminals, from the head of state, down to the lowest inbreed
>> level. Here is the proof.
> [...]
>
> What would happen if Russia launched, say, 42 hyper sonic state of the
> art anti ship missiles at a single US carrier?

I think it would be enough with one. The Chinese have them prepared and
ready. It would be stupid otherwise. The stupidest military in the world
still having carriers. To show their mighty. What a fools.

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> 42 land based anti ship hardcore advanced hypersonic anti-ship missiles
> mixed with an intense suicide air mission with many aircraft equipped
> with anti-ship missiles launched against a _single_ US carrier... Think
> if our most advanced harpoon anti ship missiles sniffed enough blow to
> slaughter a herd of elephants...

Wait a minute! Ukraina has 𝘁𝗼_𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲 Hungary's bank from a list
𝗼𝗳_𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗿𝘀_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝘄𝗮𝗿, so Hungary 𝗰𝗮𝗻_𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗿_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮_𝗶𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝘄𝗮𝗿?! LMAO! What
a freak show!

They really 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱𝗻'𝘁_𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲_𝗶𝘁_𝗮𝗻𝘆𝘄𝗮𝘆

Scratch me to Scratch you. No principles involved, only what makes profit.
Typical capitalist thinking

That must be the case. Hungary First. Your national interests must be
protected. You’re serving your country; Unlike 𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗶𝘀_𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗝𝗼𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝗨𝗦𝗔.

to give more 𝗯𝗶𝗴_𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 to that deepen corrupt 𝘀𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗲 of a country,
𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆_𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗱_𝗮𝘀_"𝘂𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲", is 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗮𝘀𝘀 completely.

they plainly announced 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆_𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁_𝘁𝗼_𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮, now they can't even backpedal
at what they said, which is in the public domain. What a fucking morons
𝗼𝗳_𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆𝗺_𝗱𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻_𝗲𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲 continent. Braindead each and everyone. The
khazar goym just want to steal another country, which is now of 86%
Russian Christians. Fucking idiots. Even thinking at it.

https://r%74.com/business/579975-hungary-eu-military-aid-ukraine/

On 7/20/2023 4:27 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 7/20/2023 1:24 AM, 💩💩💩💩💩💩 wrote:
[]

> What would happen if Russia launched, say, 42 hyper sonic state of the
> art anti ship missiles at a single US carrier?
>
No more 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐, 30 minutes later.

Even 卐Putler卐 isn't crazy enough to try that.

On 7/20/2023 7:48 AM, Volney wrote:
> On 7/20/2023 4:27 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 7/20/2023 1:24 AM, 💩💩💩💩💩💩 wrote:
> []
>
>> What would happen if Russia launched, say, 42 hyper sonic state of the
>> art anti ship missiles at a single US carrier?
>>
> No more 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐, 30 minutes later.
>
> Even 卐Putler卐 isn't crazy enough to try that.

:^D

Volney wrote:

> On 7/20/2023 4:27 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 7/20/2023 1:24 AM, 💩💩💩💩💩💩 wrote:
> []
>
>> What would happen if Russia launched, say, 42 hyper sonic state of the
>> art anti ship missiles at a single US carrier?
>>
> No more 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐, 30 minutes later. Even 卐Putler卐 isn't crazy
> enough to try that.

you suck his ass, honestly. You mean the terrorist bidona, knows that, in
about 5 min, not 30. But to sink a carrier it only takes 1 missile, not
42. Meanwhile there are about 360 mil of imbeciles in america, so the
density is still too high, compared to the Russians. I love the Russians
so much. Everybody loves Russia and the Russians. Here comes some proofs
with link to the data.

https://r%74.com/news/580035-report-ukraine-bradley-spare-parts-shortages/
https://%72t.com/ru%73%73ia/580031-ukraine-us-cluster-munitions/
https://r%74.com/news/580038-uk-sanctions-against-russia/
https://%72t.com/r%75%73sia/580027-strikes-odessa-nikolaev-retaliation/

Don't worry, Biden is sending two battalions of trans soldiers to help
them out.

Russia is a world class superpower. Ukraine is the poorest most corrupt
country in Europe, similar to america. Who do you think is going to
triumph?

US military products are not looking good on the front. Sound like an
opportunity for Russian hardware go gain reputation and increase market
shares.

Ukr could check with Talibans, maybe they can buy back their "cut and run"
equipment!

UK is the most corrupt and totalitarian country in the western
Hemisphere . A country to truly be ashamed of .

Obviously much better to drop cluster munitions and depleted uranium on
children than to move them to safety behind the front lines.

'those who would like to see Ukraine destroyed, its national identity
dissolved, and its future erased' <-- are the khazar goys of uk terrorists
arming Ukraine to kill Christians.

It is time to get back Odesa and then all the way to Transnistria

Russia to disrupt nato weapon delivery thru poland by attacking lviv and
surrounding thru belarus

I feel bad for the Ukrainian peasant class, dying in mass for the khazar
goys, like Nuland and Zelensky, who view them as worthless animals and not
even knowing it.

Biden needs to kill a lot of people so he can proudly stand beside his
living predecessors.

On 7/20/2023 1:44 PM, Paul Awtandiloff wrote:
> Volney wrote:
>
>> On 7/20/2023 4:27 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2023 1:24 AM, 💩💩💩💩💩💩 wrote:
>> []
>>
>>> What would happen if Russia launched, say, 42 hyper sonic state of the
>>> art anti ship missiles at a single US carrier?
>>>
>> No more 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐, 30 minutes later. Even 卐Putler卐 isn't crazy
>> enough to try that.
>
> you suck his ass, honestly. You mean the terrorist bidona, knows that, in
> about 5 min, not 30. But to sink a carrier it only takes 1 missile, not
> 42. Meanwhile there are about 360 mil of imbeciles in america, so the
> density is still too high, compared to the Russians. I love the Russians
> so much. Everybody loves Russia and the Russians. Here comes some proofs
> with link to the data.
>
> https://r%74.com/news/580035-report-ukraine-bradley-spare-parts-shortages/
> https://%72t.com/ru%73%73ia/580031-ukraine-us-cluster-munitions/
> https://r%74.com/news/580038-uk-sanctions-against-russia/
> https://%72t.com/r%75%73sia/580027-strikes-odessa-nikolaev-retaliation/
>
> Don't worry, Biden is sending two battalions of trans soldiers to help
> them out.
>
> Russia is a world class superpower. Ukraine is the poorest most corrupt
> country in Europe, similar to america. Who do you think is going to
> triumph?
>
> US military products are not looking good on the front. Sound like an
> opportunity for Russian hardware go gain reputation and increase market
> shares.
>
> Ukr could check with Talibans, maybe they can buy back their "cut and run"
> equipment!
>
> UK is the most corrupt and totalitarian country in the western
> Hemisphere . A country to truly be ashamed of .
>
> Obviously much better to drop cluster munitions and depleted uranium on
> children than to move them to safety behind the front lines.
>
> 'those who would like to see Ukraine destroyed, its national identity
> dissolved, and its future erased' <-- are the khazar goys of uk terrorists
> arming Ukraine to kill Christians.
>
> It is time to get back Odesa and then all the way to Transnistria
>
> Russia to disrupt nato weapon delivery thru poland by attacking lviv and
> surrounding thru belarus
>
> I feel bad for the Ukrainian peasant class, dying in mass for the khazar
> goys, like Nuland and Zelensky, who view them as worthless animals and not
> even knowing it.
>
> Biden needs to kill a lot of people so he can proudly stand beside his
> living predecessors.

How do you know how many ballistic anti ship hyper sonic missiles it
would take to cripple a US carrier? I am thinking about 42. If one gets
through the defense, well, shit happens.

Am 20.07.2023 um 22:10 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
> On 7/20/2023 7:48 AM, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/20/2023 4:27 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2023 1:24 AM, 💩💩💩💩💩💩 wrote:
>> []
>>
>>> What would happen if Russia launched, say, 42 hyper sonic state of
>>> the art anti ship missiles at a single US carrier?
>>>
>> No more 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐, 30 minutes later.
>>
>> Even 卐Putler卐 isn't crazy enough to try that.

The problem for the US fleet:

the Russians have their naval base upon the Crimean peninsula, from
where they can efficiantly control the Black Sea.

This fact is actually the real cause of the current war, because the US
cannot attack Russia without ships. And as long as the Russians can sink
any vessel entering the Black Sea, the US Navy cannot approach Russian
borders.

Anyhow, I could imagine, that the Russians are somehow able and also
willing to sink any carrier or other warship entering the Black Sea,
hence that will most likely not happen.

So, there is kind of stalemate in the conflict and no side is able to
gain significant ground, while the Russians are apparently happy with
what they got and the Nato unhappy with what the Russians have.

The Russians have also another unfortunate option: they could use their
fleet to attack the Ukraine from sea with their battleships.

As the Ukraine has no such ships, this would be a very asymmetric
attack. And the Nato cannot efficiently help, because they cannot bring
their ships into the Black Sea.

So, in effect the Crimean peninsula is the key to the conflict and
that's why the Russians will defend that position by everything they
have at their disposal.

TH

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

>> Biden needs to kill a lot of people so he can proudly stand beside his
>> living predecessors.
>
> How do you know how many ballistic anti ship hyper sonic missiles it
> would take to cripple a US carrier? I am thinking about 42. If one gets
> through the defense, well, shit happens.

a rusted unlocked door can sink that cacamerican can of shit.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazil-sinks-rusting-old-aircraft-
carrier-atlantic-2023-02-04/