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.

Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.

Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 2:43:03 AM UTC-6, Dissembling Wozzie-boy 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.
>
> Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
> solar system is measuring the length
> of solar day. What is the result predicted
> by the Einsteinian physics?

86400 as measured by Observer A stationary
on the earth.
> One prediction is - 99766.

For Observer B moving at c/s wrt the earth.

Wozzie-boy is jumping frames and overloading
his pea-brain.

> From the postulates. The second prediction is -
> 86400. From definition.

For Observer A. It's different from B, that;s why it's
called RELATIVIY.

> And similiarly with the prediction of
> a measurement of a meridian.
>
> Thank you for your attention, poor
> relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

You're welcome, Dishonest Pea-brain.

On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 05:00:01 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> > Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
> > solar system is measuring the length
> > of solar day. What is the result predicted
> > by the Einsteinian physics?
> 86400 as measured by Observer A stationary
> on the earth.

There is no such observer in the example. Learn
to read, poor trash.

> > One prediction is - 99766.
> For Observer B moving at c/s wrt the earth.

Exactly as stated in the description of this example,
poor trash.

>
> Wozzie-boy is jumping frames and overloading
> his pea-brain.

No, it's just that Harrie-boy can't read.

> For Observer A. It's different from B, that;s why it's
> called RELATIVIY.

And still, by the definition of second valid up to
1960 (during the whole life of your idiot guru)
it must be the same. Thus, his moronic physics
was not consistent, qed. Your screams and
insults won't change this, poor trash. Samely
as they won't change what real clocks of GPS
indicate (i.e. real time).

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:53:33 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 05:00:01 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > > Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
> > > solar system is measuring the length
> > > of solar day. What is the result predicted
> > > by the Einsteinian physics?
> >
> > 86400 as measured by Observer A stationary
> > on the earth.
>
> There is no such observer in the example. Learn
> to read, poor trash.

There is ALWAYS an observer making measurements in
EVERY inertial frame according to relativity. Learn
the science, Wozniak. You don't get to make up your
own rules and pretend that they apply to relativity.

"In special relativity, an observer is a frame of reference
from which a set of objects or events are being measured."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_%28special_relativity%29

YOU implied a frame of reference when you stated that the
second was defined as 1/84600th of a day, whether you
realized it or not.
> > > One prediction is - 99766.
> >
> > For Observer B moving at c/s wrt the earth.
>
> Exactly as stated in the description of this example,
> poor trash.
>
> > Wozzie-boy is jumping frames and overloading
> > his pea-brain.
>
> No, it's just that Harrie-boy can't read.

Harrie-boy can read very well. He can THINK, too,
which seems to a problem for Wozzie-boy.

> > For Observer A. It's different from B, that;s why it's
> > called RELATIVIY.
>
> And still, by the definition of second valid up to
> 1960 (during the whole life of your idiot guru)
> it must be the same.

A frame of reference is implied for every clock in
which it is at rest. A clock at rest wrt Observer B
passes time at 1 second/second, just like a clock
at rest wrt Observer A. Relativity predicts what
is measured in moving frames. That's why it's
called RELATIVITY.

> Thus, his moronic physics was not consistent, qed.

False "proof" is refuted, so you got nuttn'.

> Your screams and insults won't change this, poor
> trash.

Actually, your spitting and abuse won't change the fact
that you accuse relativity of being ... relative! :-))

> Samely as they won't change what real clocks of GPS
> indicate (i.e. real time).

Have you forgotten the refutation of your repeated insanity
about the GPS? Your dishonest attempt to delete it from the
discussion fails miserably. Google keeps a record.

"At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained
the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that
relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite
clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
was that predicted by GR, then the synthesizer could be turned on bringing the
clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. The atomic clock was first
operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the syn-
thesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 1012
faster than clocks on the ground; if left uncorrected this would have resulted in
timing errors of about 38,000 nanoseconds per day." -- Neil Ashby
http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm

You definitely need help:
https://www.powerofpositivity.com/hatred-destroys-mental-health/

On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 13:05:15 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:53:33 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 05:00:01 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > > Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
> > > > solar system is measuring the length
> > > > of solar day. What is the result predicted
> > > > by the Einsteinian physics?
> > >
> > > 86400 as measured by Observer A stationary
> > > on the earth.
> >
> > There is no such observer in the example. Learn
> > to read, poor trash.
> There is ALWAYS an observer making measurements in
> EVERY inertial frame according to relativity.

But there is no such observer and no such frame in
the example. They're not interesting/insignificant here,
poor trash.

> YOU implied a frame of reference when you stated that the
> second was defined as 1/84600th of a day

No, poor trash. It's just stating of the fact that it
was.

> > > For Observer B moving at c/s wrt the earth.
> >
> > Exactly as stated in the description of this example,
> > poor trash.
> >
> > > Wozzie-boy is jumping frames and overloading
> > > his pea-brain.
> >
> > No, it's just that Harrie-boy can't read.
> Harrie-boy can read very well. He can THINK, too,
> which seems to a problem for Wozzie-boy.

You spitting and insults can't change anything, but,
of course, they're exactly what is expected when a
piece of dumb, fanatic trash is confronted with
some logic.

> > > For Observer A. It's different from B, that;s why it's
> > > called RELATIVIY.
> >
> > And still, by the definition of second valid up to
> > 1960 (during the whole life of your idiot guru)
> > it must be the same.
> A frame of reference is implied for every clock in

Cut this mumble. Measurement is - comparing
something to a predefined unit of reference.
Right or not, poor trash?
"Measuring a day" in the physics of 1905-1960
meant - comparing it to itself. The result couldn't
be different than one (or, equivalently, 86400s).
Unless, of course, in an inconsistent theory, like
The Shit of your idiot guru.

> > Samely as they won't change what real clocks of GPS
> > indicate (i.e. real time).
> Have you forgotten the refutation of your repeated insanity
> about the GPS? Your dishonest attempt to delete it from the
> discussion fails miserably. Google keeps a record.
>
> "At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained
> the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that
> relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite
> clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
> was that predicted by GR

And for some hours or days things were matching
the prophecies of your idiot guru. I'm not denying it.
Then, with a little switch, things returned to the
correct state. Common sense was warning him.

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 5:46:17 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:
>
> On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 13:05:15 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:53:33 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:
> > >
> > > On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 05:00:01 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
> > > > > solar system is measuring the length
> > > > > of solar day. What is the result predicted
> > > > > by the Einsteinian physics?
> > > >
> > > > 86400 as measured by Observer A stationary
> > > > on the earth.
> > >
> > > There is no such observer in the example. Learn
> > > to read, poor trash.
> >
> > There is ALWAYS an observer making measurements in
> > EVERY inertial frame according to relativity.
>
> But there is no such observer and no such frame in
> the example. They're not interesting/insignificant here,
> poor trash.

You are a baldfaced liar. Wozniak. Deleting the proof in your
post doesn't delete the fact:

Gary Harnagel's profile photo
Gary Harnagel
5:05 AM (1 hour ago)
to
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:53:33 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 05:00:01 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > > Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
> > > solar system is measuring the length
> > > of solar day. What is the result predicted
> > > by the Einsteinian physics?
> >
> > 86400 as measured by Observer A stationary
> > on the earth.
>
> There is no such observer in the example. Learn
> to read, poor trash.

"There is ALWAYS an observer making measurements in
EVERY inertial frame according to relativity. Learn
the science, Wozniak. You don't get to make up your
own rules and pretend that they apply to relativity.

"In special relativity, an observer is a frame of reference
from which a set of objects or events are being measured."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_%28special_relativity%29"

> > YOU implied a frame of reference when you stated that the
> > second was defined as 1/84600th of a day
>
> No, poor trash. It's just stating of the fact that it
> was.

Your facts are fiction, Wozniak.

> > > > For Observer B moving at c/s wrt the earth.
> > >
> > > Exactly as stated in the description of this example,
> > > poor trash.
> > >
> > > > Wozzie-boy is jumping frames and overloading
> > > > his pea-brain.
> > >
> > > No, it's just that Harrie-boy can't read.
> >
> > Harrie-boy can read very well. He can THINK, too,
> > which seems to a problem for Wozzie-boy.
>
> You spitting and insults can't change anything, but,
> of course, they're exactly what is expected when a
> piece of dumb, fanatic trash is confronted with
> some logic.

Wozniak, you have no valid logic. All you have is insults
and bluster, which is what you accuse others of. That's
called hypocrisy.

> > > > For Observer A. It's different from B, that;s why it's
> > > > called RELATIVIY.
> > >
> > > And still, by the definition of second valid up to
> > > 1960 (during the whole life of your idiot guru)
> > > it must be the same.
> > A frame of reference is implied for every clock in
>
> Cut this mumble.

> Measurement is - comparing
> something to a predefined unit of reference.
> Right or not, poor trash?

"unit of reference"? Creative dissembling again? It's
called a STANDARD. Standards are ALWAYS measured
at rest in a locally inertial reference frame. And BOTH
observers can compare their clocks against standards.

> "Measuring a day" in the physics of 1905-1960
> meant - comparing it to itself. The result couldn't
> be different than one (or, equivalently, 86400s).
> Unless, of course, in an inconsistent theory, like
> The Shit of your idiot guru.

More hypocrisy, Wozniak. Stop dissembling. You do
know what happens to liars, don't you?

> > > Samely as they won't change what real clocks of GPS
> > > indicate (i.e. real time).
> >
> > Have you forgotten the refutation of your repeated insanity
> > about the GPS? Your dishonest attempt to delete it from the
> > discussion fails miserably. Google keeps a record.
> >
> > "At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained
> > the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that
> > relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite
> > clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
> > was that predicted by GR
>
> And for some hours or days things were matching
> the prophecies of your idiot guru. I'm not denying it.

Well, yes you are denying it. At first, the clocks ran
at a rate of one second per second for days, and they
became out of sync with the earth clocks. What's the
matter, Wozniak, can't you READ?

> Then, with a little switch, things returned to the
> correct state. Common sense was warning him.

You have NO "common sense" if you believe that. You
are a liar if you don't. Prevaricator or incompetent, Wozniak,
which one are you? Pick one or the other, because you're
backed into a corner and those are your only choices.

On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 14:32:08 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> > > YOU implied a frame of reference when you stated that the
> > > second was defined as 1/84600th of a day
> >
> > No, poor trash. It's just stating of the fact that it
> > was.
> Your facts are fiction, Wozniak.

:))
So, wasn't the second defined as 1/84600 of
a day? And GPS clocks aren't real. That's what
The Shit is doing to the brains of its victims.

Ok, poor trash. So, my observer (moving with c/2 wrt
solar system) according to the physics of your idiot
guru is expecting 99766 seconds as the result. We've
agrreed on that.
Seconds, i.e - what?

> > > > > For Observer B moving at c/s wrt the earth.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly as stated in the description of this example,
> > > > poor trash.
> > > >
> > > > > Wozzie-boy is jumping frames and overloading
> > > > > his pea-brain.
> > > >
> > > > No, it's just that Harrie-boy can't read.
> > >
> > > Harrie-boy can read very well. He can THINK, too,
> > > which seems to a problem for Wozzie-boy.
> >
> > You spitting and insults can't change anything, but,
> > of course, they're exactly what is expected when a
> > piece of dumb, fanatic trash is confronted with
> > some logic.
> Wozniak, you have no valid logic. All you have is insults
> and bluster, which is what you accuse others of. That's
> called hypocrisy.

Your spitting and insults can't change anything, but,
of course, they're exactly what is expected when a
piece of dumb, fanatic trash is confronted with
some logic.

> > > > > For Observer A. It's different from B, that;s why it's
> > > > > called RELATIVIY.
> > > >
> > > > And still, by the definition of second valid up to
> > > > 1960 (during the whole life of your idiot guru)
> > > > it must be the same.
> > > A frame of reference is implied for every clock in
> >
> > Cut this mumble.
>
>
> > Measurement is - comparing
> > something to a predefined unit of reference.
> > Right or not, poor trash?
> "unit of reference"? Creative dissembling again? It's
> called a STANDARD. Standards are ALWAYS measured
> at rest in a locally inertial reference frame. And BOTH

Screaming won't help, poor trash. No, not always.
They're mostly measured on the Earth surface, and it
doesn't match your ridiculous demands.

And for sure they weren't in the time when your
idiot guru was living and mumbling. Too bad for
him. Too bad for his worshippers too.

> > And for some hours or days things were matching
> > the prophecies of your idiot guru. I'm not denying it.
> Well, yes you are denying it. At first, the clocks ran
> at a rate of one second per second for days, and they
> became out of sync with the earth clocks. What's the
> matter, Wozniak, can't you READ?

Of course they were. I'm not denying it, sorry. Except the rate.
It wasn't second per second, it was (second of relativistic
idiots) per (second of relativistic idiots) . A slight difference.

Then, with a little switch, things returned to the
correct state. Common sense was warning him.

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:59:02 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 14:32:08 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > > > YOU implied a frame of reference when you stated that the
> > > > second was defined as 1/84600th of a day
> > >
> > > No, poor trash. It's just stating of the fact that it
> > > was.
> >
> > Your facts are fiction, Wozniak.
> :))
> So, wasn't the second defined as 1/84600 of
> a day? And GPS clocks aren't real. That's what
> The Shit is doing to the brains of its victims.

Stop lying and become an honest man, Wozniak.
The point is that scientists and engineers are smart
and know what they're doing while you aren't and don't.
Blathering deception. invective and dishonesty isn't
a valid argument.

> Ok, poor trash. So, my observer (moving with c/2 wrt
> solar system) according to the physics of your idiot
> guru is expecting 99766 seconds as the result. We've
> agrreed on that.
> Seconds, i.e - what?

What result? Is your brain so lame you can't pose a proper
condition? His clock or earth's clock? His clock is 1 sec/sec,
but he sees earth's clock as running slow. BTW, "sees" doesn't
mean he observes it with a telescope. He has to remove the
fact that he's moving closer each second.

> > > You spitting and insults can't change anything, but,
> > > of course, they're exactly what is expected when a
> > > piece of dumb, fanatic trash is confronted with
> > > some logic.
> >
> > Wozniak, you have no valid logic. All you have is insults
> > and bluster, which is what you accuse others of. That's
> > called hypocrisy.
>
> Your spitting and insults can't change anything, but,
> of course, they're exactly what is expected when a
> piece of dumb, fanatic trash is confronted with
> some logic.

Pot, kettle, black :-))

> > > > > > For Observer A. It's different from B, that;s why it's
> > > > > > called RELATIVIY.
> > > > >
> > > > > And still, by the definition of second valid up to
> > > > > 1960 (during the whole life of your idiot guru)
> > > > > it must be the same.
> > > > A frame of reference is implied for every clock in
> > >
> > > Cut this mumble.
> >
> >
> > > Measurement is - comparing
> > > something to a predefined unit of reference.
> > > Right or not, poor trash?
> >
> > "unit of reference"? Creative dissembling again? It's
> > called a STANDARD. Standards are ALWAYS measured
> > at rest in a locally inertial reference frame. And BOTH

> Screaming won't help, poor trash. No, not always.
> They're mostly measured on the Earth surface, and it
> doesn't match your ridiculous demands.

Only your baloney is ridiculous, Wozniak. And I HAVE to
capitalize in a vain attempt to penetrate your thick skull.

> And for sure they weren't in the time when your
> idiot guru was living and mumbling. Too bad for
> him. Too bad for his worshippers too.

And too bad for you since your sorry attempts to twist
facts fail every time.

> > > And for some hours or days things were matching
> > > the prophecies of your idiot guru. I'm not denying it.
> >
> > Well, yes you are denying it. At first, the clocks ran
> > at a rate of one second per second for days, and they
> > became out of sync with the earth clocks. What's the
> > matter, Wozniak, can't you READ?
>
> Of course they were. I'm not denying it, sorry. Except the rate.
> It wasn't second per second, it was (second of relativistic
> idiots) per (second of relativistic idiots) .

The clocks were set to run at seconds/second before launch
and they ran at seconds.second locally in orbit. Some like you
believed they would be received at the ground station at
seconds/second, but they weren't. So the disbelievers became
believers and threw the switch. Unlike the reality-deniers like
you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#CITEREFScudellari2010

> A slight difference.
> Then, with a little switch, things returned to the
> correct state.

No "returning" to it, Wozniak. You are trying to twist reality again.

> Common sense was warning him.

Yes, the disbelievers had the common sense to believe reality,
unlike a reality-denier like you.

On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 16:02:03 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:59:02 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 14:32:08 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > > > YOU implied a frame of reference when you stated that the
> > > > > second was defined as 1/84600th of a day
> > > >
> > > > No, poor trash. It's just stating of the fact that it
> > > > was.
> > >
> > > Your facts are fiction, Wozniak.
> > :))
> > So, wasn't the second defined as 1/84600 of
> > a day? And GPS clocks aren't real. That's what
> > The Shit is doing to the brains of its victims.
> Stop lying and become an honest man, Wozniak.

You mean I should stop lying that second
was defined as 1/84600 of a day and that
GPS and its clocks are real?

> > Ok, poor trash. So, my observer (moving with c/2 wrt
> > solar system) according to the physics of your idiot
> > guru is expecting 99766 seconds as the result. We've
> > agrreed on that.
> > Seconds, i.e - what?
> What result? Is your brain so lame you can't pose a proper
> condition?

:))
Quoting:
"
>>>Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
>>>solar system is measuring the length
>>>of solar day.
[...]
> One prediction is - 99766.
For Observer B moving at c/s wrt the earth."
End of quoting.

this result, poor trash.
99766 seconds. Seconds, i.e. what?
[a remind - we're talking about the physics
of your idiot guru, not about yours.]

> > Screaming won't help, poor trash. No, not always.
> > They're mostly measured on the Earth surface, and it
> > doesn't match your ridiculous demands.
> Only your baloney is ridiculous, Wozniak. And I HAVE to
> capitalize in a vain attempt to penetrate your thick skull.

You spitting and insults can't change anything, but,
of course, they're exactly what is expected when a
piece of dumb, fanatic trash is confronted to
some logic.

> > > > And for some hours or days things were matching
> > > > the prophecies of your idiot guru. I'm not denying it.
> > >
> > > Well, yes you are denying it. At first, the clocks ran
> > > at a rate of one second per second for days, and they
> > > became out of sync with the earth clocks. What's the
> > > matter, Wozniak, can't you READ?
> >
> > Of course they were. I'm not denying it, sorry. Except the rate.
> > It wasn't second per second, it was (second of relativistic
> > idiots) per (second of relativistic idiots) .
> The clocks were set to run at seconds/second before launch

No, they were set to run (second of relativistic idiots) per
(second of relativistic idiots) . It didn't work. Of course
it didn't, common sense was warning your idiot guru.
Fortunately, a little switch and things returned to the
correct state, with the second as it always was.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#CITEREFScudellari2010

Like denyng that GPS clocks are real (because they
can't fit the description of your "reality"), poor trash?

> > A slight difference.
> > Then, with a little switch, things returned to the
> > correct state.
> No "returning" to it, Wozniak.

Oh yes, Harmagel. Simple little switch and the clocks
indicate t'=t again. Just like always.

> > Common sense was warning him.
> Yes, the disbelievers had the common sense to believe reality,

The one not including GPS clocks.

On 10/23/2023 7:46 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 13:05:15 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:53:33 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>
>>> On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 05:00:01 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
>>>>> solar system is measuring the length
>>>>> of solar day. What is the result predicted
>>>>> by the Einsteinian physics?
>>>>
>>>> 86400 as measured by Observer A stationary
>>>> on the earth.
>>>
>>> There is no such observer in the example. Learn
>>> to read, poor trash.

There is an implied observer for every reference frame, as things are
stated in regards to the frame itself, not by any actual observer.

>> There is ALWAYS an observer making measurements in
>> EVERY inertial frame according to relativity.
>
> But there is no such observer and no such frame in
> the example.

There doesn't need to be a physical observer, and the frame itself
exists just by defining it.

They're not interesting/insignificant here,
> poor trash.
>
>
>> YOU implied a frame of reference when you stated that the
>> second was defined as 1/84600th of a day
>
> No, poor trash. It's just stating of the fact that it
> was.

The frame of reference is that of the earth itself, or specifically the
frame where Earth's axis of rotation is stationary (other than rotating).

It wasn't known at the time of definition that the relative motion of
frames mattered (as Einstein himself discovered this), a particular
frame wasn't stated. Newton's universal time was assumed.
>
>>>> For Observer B moving at c/s wrt the earth.
>>>
>>> Exactly as stated in the description of this example,
>>> poor trash.
>>>
>>>> Wozzie-boy is jumping frames and overloading
>>>> his pea-brain.
>>>
>>> No, it's just that Harrie-boy can't read.
>> Harrie-boy can read very well. He can THINK, too,
>> which seems to a problem for Wozzie-boy.
>
> You spitting and insults can't change anything, but,
> of course, they're exactly what is expected when a
> piece of dumb, fanatic trash is confronted with
> some logic.
>
>>>> For Observer A. It's different from B, that;s why it's
>>>> called RELATIVIY.
>>>
>>> And still, by the definition of second valid up to
>>> 1960 (during the whole life of your idiot guru)
>>> it must be the same.

>> A frame of reference is implied for every clock in
>
> Cut this mumble. Measurement is - comparing
> something to a predefined unit of reference.
> Right or not, poor trash?

The second being measured by the best clock they had, which was the
earth itself.

> "Measuring a day" in the physics of 1905-1960
> meant - comparing it to itself. The result couldn't
> be different than one (or, equivalently, 86400s).

Since they didn't have any better clock, that's what they did. And at
the time of the definition, the wobbliness and slowing of the earth was
too small to matter.

> Unless, of course, in an inconsistent theory, like
> The Shit of your idiot guru.

They discovered the earth was wobbly and slowing, which is why they came
up with a better standard, a better clock.
>
>>> Samely as they won't change what real clocks of GPS
>>> indicate (i.e. real time).
>> Have you forgotten the refutation of your repeated insanity
>> about the GPS? Your dishonest attempt to delete it from the
>> discussion fails miserably. Google keeps a record.
>>
>> "At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained
>> the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that
>> relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite
>> clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
>> was that predicted by GR
>
> And for some hours or days things were matching
> the prophecies of your idiot guru.

Why are you calling Newton an idiot guru? Sure, Newton was wrong by
believing time was universal, but there was no way for him to know this
was so esp. given the accuracy needed which would be unbelievable to him.

> I'm not denying it.
> Then, with a little switch, things returned to the
> correct state.

The one predicted by Einstein, of course.

Volney wrote:

> On 10/23/2023 7:46 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> And for some hours or days things were matching the prophecies of your
>> idiot guru.
>
> Why are you calling Newton an idiot guru? Sure, Newton was wrong by
> believing time was universal, but there was no way for him to know this
> was so esp. given the accuracy needed which would be unbelievable to
> him. The one predicted by Einstein, of course.

you mean the honorable 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻, 𝗜𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗲𝗹_𝗩𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗼𝘃𝘀𝗸𝘆, which went farther the
Einstine in relativity. Higher civilization on earth, before 1700,
destroyed by vaccines. Proofs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

𝗦𝗧𝗢𝗟𝗘𝗡_𝗛𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗬_𝗧𝗛𝗘_𝗗𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡_𝗢𝗙_𝗧𝗛𝗘_𝗢𝗟𝗗_𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗟𝗗_𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧_2
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/KhBpSfapDaUO

Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 10/23/2023 7:46 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
[-]
> The second being measured by the best clock they had, which was the
> earth itself.
>
> > "Measuring a day" in the physics of 1905-1960
> > meant - comparing it to itself. The result couldn't
> > be different than one (or, equivalently, 86400s).
>
> Since they didn't have any better clock, that's what they did. And at
> the time of the definition, the wobbliness and slowing of the earth was
> too small to matter.

For timekeeping, yes. The precession and the nutation of the Earth
were of course known, and could be observed astronomically.

The slowing down of the Earth was also predicted,
and it could be verified by looking at historical records
of total solar eclipses.

The first direct confirmation of the nutation came in the 1930ies,
using Shortt free pendulum clocks and stabilised quartz clocks.
(stable to better than 1 millisecond/day, so by about 10^-8)

Nowadays it is the 'day' which is defined as 86400 seconds (exactly)
except for leap second days, which are 86401 seconds,

Jan

On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 09:57:51 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On 10/23/2023 7:46 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> [-]
> > The second being measured by the best clock they had, which was the
> > earth itself.
> >
> > > "Measuring a day" in the physics of 1905-1960
> > > meant - comparing it to itself. The result couldn't
> > > be different than one (or, equivalently, 86400s).
> >
> > Since they didn't have any better clock, that's what they did. And at
> > the time of the definition, the wobbliness and slowing of the earth was
> > too small to matter.
> For timekeeping, yes. The precession and the nutation of the Earth
> were of course known, and could be observed astronomically.
>
> The slowing down of the Earth was also predicted,
> and it could be verified by looking at historical records
> of total solar eclipses.
>
> The first direct confirmation of the nutation came in the 1930ies,
> using Shortt free pendulum clocks and stabilised quartz clocks.
> (stable to better than 1 millisecond/day, so by about 10^-8)
>
> Nowadays it is the 'day' which is defined as 86400 seconds (exactly)
> except for leap second days, which are 86401 seconds,

Taking it simply: the real time is more complicated
than your formulas of beauty. So are real observers,
BTW.