When Einstein lived and mumbled, "second" or
"unit of time" weren't defined as Cs related, like
today. When he was saying "unit of time" - he
meant 1/24*60*60 of a day.

Asking/answerring whether his moronic mumble
was predicting something correctly or not - we
should consider second/(unit of time) as he meant
it.

Of course not. The old definition is making GPS/ECI
clocks the valid ones, and they indicate t'=t.

Let's consider his famous twins - with the definitions
valid FOR HIM. Twin A on Earth has counted, let's
say, 1000 solar days, i.e. 24*3600*1000 units of time.
How many units of time twin B (the travelling one)
counted?

Poor mumbling idiot; basic definitions were simply
too much for him.

On 6/15/2021 6:20 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> When Einstein lived and mumbled, "second" or
> "unit of time" weren't defined as Cs related, like
> today. When he was saying "unit of time" - he
> meant 1/24*60*60 of a day.

Wrong. It was then defined as 1/24*60*60 of a *particular* day, namely
Jan 1, 1900. All other days at the time were close, but not necessarily
exactly the same, particularly as the earth moves in its orbit and the
length of time from local noon to noon changes.

That number, 9,192,631,770, wasn't pulled from a hat. It was chosen so
that the new second (9,192,631,770 Cs cycles) was as close as possible
to 1/24*60*60 of a Jan 1 1900 day so people reading time in "old"
seconds could switch to "new" seconds with no conversion, but still
restricted by the lower precision of the "old" second, of course. So
Einstein's second and "our" second are the same length of time, within
the limits of precision of the best clocks of 1900. By definition.

They did exactly the same with the "old" and "new" meters, several times
in fact, since the meter definition changed a few times. Each time the
"new" meter was the same length as the "old" meter to within the limits
of then-current precision. Same with the "new" kilogram, just a couple
years ago.

<snip vodka-seeped moronic mumble>

On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 15:43:15 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/15/2021 6:20 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > When Einstein lived and mumbled, "second" or
> > "unit of time" weren't defined as Cs related, like
> > today. When he was saying "unit of time" - he
> > meant 1/24*60*60 of a day.
> Wrong. It was then defined as 1/24*60*60 of a *particular* day, namely
> Jan 1, 1900.

Wrong, stupid Mike.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
"The second was thus defined as "the fraction 1/31,556,925.9747 of the
tropical year [not day - MW] for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time"".
But such definition was established in 1960. Not in 1905, stupid Mike.

The only second known in the time of your idiot guru was
1/24*60*60 of a day. But sticking to the basic definitions was too
much for that poor, mumbling halfbrain. And too much for his
minions as well.

On 6/15/2021 10:23 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 15:43:15 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/15/2021 6:20 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> When Einstein lived and mumbled, "second" or
>>> "unit of time" weren't defined as Cs related, like
>>> today. When he was saying "unit of time" - he
>>> meant 1/24*60*60 of a day.
>> Wrong. It was then defined as 1/24*60*60 of a *particular* day, namely
>> Jan 1, 1900.
>
>
> Wrong, stupid Mike.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> "The second was thus defined as "the fraction 1/31,556,925.9747 of the
> tropical year [not day - MW] for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time"".
> But such definition was established in 1960. Not in 1905, stupid Mike.
>
> The only second known in the time of your idiot guru was
> 1/24*60*60 of a day.

No, scientists already knew by then that 1/86164 of a sidereal day was a
more accurate way of measuring time. I don't know if they had more
accurate time measurements than that, but they must have, since they
already suspected earth's rotation wasn't consistent (wobbly or slowing
down). Time, however, was then defined by the railroads, or UK Greenwich
Observatory, or Washington DC solar time, or local solar time, depending.

Don't confuse the clock (earth) with time itself. Like the decay of
radioactive elements certainly does not depend on the rotation of some
big rock, but at the time that rock may have been the best clock
available to measure it.

Einstein's 1905 paper mentions "second" (as unit of time) 4 times, in
two pairs, both times showing how a moving clock is seen as running slow
by a certain amount of "seconds per second". Meaning, of course, if the
same definition of second was used each time, the definition cancels and
the amount is a ratio, a pure number. Thus the actual definition is
pretty much irrelevant. So...do you even have a point (not the one on
top of your head) ?

On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 18:41:35 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/15/2021 10:23 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 15:43:15 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 6/15/2021 6:20 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> When Einstein lived and mumbled, "second" or
> >>> "unit of time" weren't defined as Cs related, like
> >>> today. When he was saying "unit of time" - he
> >>> meant 1/24*60*60 of a day.
> >> Wrong. It was then defined as 1/24*60*60 of a *particular* day, namely
> >> Jan 1, 1900.
> >
> >
> > Wrong, stupid Mike.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> > "The second was thus defined as "the fraction 1/31,556,925.9747 of the
> > tropical year [not day - MW] for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time"".
> > But such definition was established in 1960. Not in 1905, stupid Mike.
> >
> > The only second known in the time of your idiot guru was
> > 1/24*60*60 of a day.
> No, scientists already knew by then that 1/86164 of a sidereal day was a
> more accurate way of measuring time.

Nobody cares, stupid Mike. The definition of second, default
and valid for your idiot guru was - 1/24*60*60 of a day. As he
hasn't specified any other unit of time he was using, this one
must be applied when considering whether his moronic
"predictions" were correct or not.
Of course they were not; with the old definition GPS/ECI clocks
are the valid ones. And they indicate t'=t.

> Einstein's 1905 paper mentions "second" (as unit of time) 4 times, in
> two pairs, both times showing how a moving clock is seen as running slow
> by a certain amount of "seconds per second".

Poor, mumbling idiot has somehow imagined and "proven"
that during 2 Earth rotations Earth can rotate only 1.5 times.
Well, too bad for him; and too bad for his crank followers.
Including you, stupid Mike.

On 6/15/2021 1:28 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 18:41:35 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/15/2021 10:23 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 15:43:15 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/2021 6:20 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> When Einstein lived and mumbled, "second" or
>>>>> "unit of time" weren't defined as Cs related, like
>>>>> today. When he was saying "unit of time" - he
>>>>> meant 1/24*60*60 of a day.
>>>> Wrong. It was then defined as 1/24*60*60 of a *particular* day, namely
>>>> Jan 1, 1900.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong, stupid Mike.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>> "The second was thus defined as "the fraction 1/31,556,925.9747 of the
>>> tropical year [not day - MW] for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time"".
>>> But such definition was established in 1960. Not in 1905, stupid Mike.
>>>
>>> The only second known in the time of your idiot guru was
>>> 1/24*60*60 of a day.
>> No, scientists already knew by then that 1/86164 of a sidereal day was a
>> more accurate way of measuring time.
>
> Nobody cares, stupid Mike. The definition of second, default
> and valid for your idiot guru was - 1/24*60*60 of a day. As he
> hasn't specified any other unit of time he was using, this one
> must be applied when considering whether his moronic
> "predictions" were correct or not.
> Of course they were not; with the old definition GPS/ECI clocks
> are the valid ones. And they indicate t'=t.

If we accept that definition for the second since that's all they had, a
GPS bird's clock would measure the earth rotates once per 86400.000038
seconds* while someone on the ground measures one rotation per 86400
seconds* (exactly). With length of a "second" initially set to exactly
one earth rotation (relative to the sun) divided by 86400. And before
you respond, don't confuse time (what clocks measure, such as the GPS
clock and the ground clock) with the master clock (the rotating earth).
Ground clock and master clock/earth itself can be the same, it doesn't
matter.
>
>> Einstein's 1905 paper mentions "second" (as unit of time) 4 times, in
>> two pairs, both times showing how a moving clock is seen as running slow
>> by a certain amount of "seconds per second".
>
> Poor, mumbling idiot has somehow imagined and "proven"
> that during 2 Earth rotations Earth can rotate only 1.5 times.
> Well, too bad for him; and too bad for his crank followers.
> Including you, stupid Mike.

Once again, you are confusing time with the clock (rotating earth).

On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 20:16:18 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/15/2021 1:28 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 18:41:35 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 6/15/2021 10:23 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 15:43:15 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 6/15/2021 6:20 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> When Einstein lived and mumbled, "second" or
> >>>>> "unit of time" weren't defined as Cs related, like
> >>>>> today. When he was saying "unit of time" - he
> >>>>> meant 1/24*60*60 of a day.
> >>>> Wrong. It was then defined as 1/24*60*60 of a *particular* day, namely
> >>>> Jan 1, 1900.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Wrong, stupid Mike.
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> >>> "The second was thus defined as "the fraction 1/31,556,925.9747 of the
> >>> tropical year [not day - MW] for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time"".
> >>> But such definition was established in 1960. Not in 1905, stupid Mike.
> >>>
> >>> The only second known in the time of your idiot guru was
> >>> 1/24*60*60 of a day.
> >> No, scientists already knew by then that 1/86164 of a sidereal day was a
> >> more accurate way of measuring time.
> >
> > Nobody cares, stupid Mike. The definition of second, default
> > and valid for your idiot guru was - 1/24*60*60 of a day. As he
> > hasn't specified any other unit of time he was using, this one
> > must be applied when considering whether his moronic
> > "predictions" were correct or not.
> > Of course they were not; with the old definition GPS/ECI clocks
> > are the valid ones. And they indicate t'=t.
> If we accept that definition for the second since that's all they had, a
> GPS bird's clock would measure the earth rotates once per 86400.000038
> seconds* while someone on the ground measures one rotation per 86400
> seconds* (exactly).

No, stupid Mike. If we accepted that definition, GPS clocks would measure
(and have measured, as GPS staff did accept it) Cs radiation frequency to
be 4 Hz higher on a satellite than on Earth (9 192 631 774 instead
9 192 631 770, you know these numbers, don't you?). Falsifying The
Holiest Postulate and the whole Shit of your idiot guru.

Common sense was warning him. Was warning all of you. Poincare
was teaching it's all just name conventions... you should have listened
to them.

El martes, 15 de junio de 2021 a las 14:50:06 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 20:16:18 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> > If we accept that definition for the second since that's all they had, a
> > GPS bird's clock would measure the earth rotates once per 86400.000038
> > seconds* while someone on the ground measures one rotation per 86400
> > seconds* (exactly).
> No, stupid Mike. If we accepted that definition, GPS clocks would measure
> (and have measured, as GPS staff did accept it) Cs radiation frequency to
> be 4 Hz higher on a satellite than on Earth (9 192 631 774 instead
> 9 192 631 770, you know these numbers, don't you?). Falsifying The
> Holiest Postulate and the whole Shit of your idiot guru.
>

You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.
The physical process a Cesium atomic clock uses is the following:

"The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency ∆νCs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be 9192631770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s−1."

The atomic clock uses a feedback system, where the frequency of an oscillator istuned to the frequency where the "unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency" is maximized. If the oscillator is not at precisely 9192631770 Hz, those transitions do not occur.

Inside the GPS satellite a Cesium atomic clock uses the same physical process (as per Einstein first principle, "The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion" dictates.

So the GPS atomic clock is running precisely at 9192631770 Hz, the same frequency a similar clock runs on the ground.

What the GPS electronics do is to modify the frequency used to transmit the GPS signal to the ground, by using counters. The frequency rate of those signals is 10.2299999954326 MHz (much lower frequency than the 9.192631770 GHz of the clock). See section 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan of the GPS-200J document for details.

Stop telling lies and being a crackpot!!!

On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 21:08:59 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El martes, 15 de junio de 2021 a las 14:50:06 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> > On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 20:16:18 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> > > If we accept that definition for the second since that's all they had, a
> > > GPS bird's clock would measure the earth rotates once per 86400.000038
> > > seconds* while someone on the ground measures one rotation per 86400
> > > seconds* (exactly).
> > No, stupid Mike. If we accepted that definition, GPS clocks would measure
> > (and have measured, as GPS staff did accept it) Cs radiation frequency to
> > be 4 Hz higher on a satellite than on Earth (9 192 631 774 instead
> > 9 192 631 770, you know these numbers, don't you?). Falsifying The
> > Holiest Postulate and the whole Shit of your idiot guru.
> >
> You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.
> The physical process a Cesium atomic clock uses is the following:
>
> "The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the
> fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency

You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.
Once again: I'm talking to an idiot so it has to be repeated again and
again... to estimate the real value of your idiot guru's prophecies you
have to know what second (unit of time) meant for him, not what
it means for you; and that was 1/24*60*60 of a day. With second
defined this way his inconsistent, moronic mumble is only some
very obviously inconsistent, moronic mumble.

And, of course, GPS staff is ignoring your wannabe definition;
according to the old definition second is ~9 192 631 770 Cs
periods on Earth and ~9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite, and,
as anyone can check, that's how GPS clocks are set.

On 6/15/2021 3:33 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 21:08:59 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
>> El martes, 15 de junio de 2021 a las 14:50:06 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 20:16:18 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>>>> If we accept that definition for the second since that's all they had, a
>>>> GPS bird's clock would measure the earth rotates once per 86400.000038
>>>> seconds* while someone on the ground measures one rotation per 86400
>>>> seconds* (exactly).
>>> No, stupid Mike. If we accepted that definition, GPS clocks would measure
>>> (and have measured, as GPS staff did accept it) Cs radiation frequency to
>>> be 4 Hz higher on a satellite than on Earth (9 192 631 774 instead
>>> 9 192 631 770, you know these numbers, don't you?). Falsifying The
>>> Holiest Postulate and the whole Shit of your idiot guru.
>>>
>> You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.
>> The physical process a Cesium atomic clock uses is the following:
>>
>> "The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the
>> fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency
>
> You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.

No, it is you who is lying. Once again, the second is defined to be the
time for 9 192 631 770 cycles of the Cs frequency, from a local clock.
Since the clock is aboard the satellite, it is obviously local to it and
isn't going anywhere. The Cs frequency is ALSO divided by 9192631774.1
to counteract the net GR speedup when sent to Earth. On board the
satellite, this is used to generate the 10.2299999954326 MHz signal
Paparios mentioned, so that it will be RECEIVED on earth at 10.23 MHz.
Ever hear of the Pound-Rebka experiment? Same thing.
>
> And, of course, GPS staff is ignoring your wannabe definition;

Explain Section 3.3.1.1, Frequency Plan of GPS-200J then.

On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 23:40:35 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/15/2021 3:33 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 21:08:59 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> >> El martes, 15 de junio de 2021 a las 14:50:06 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> >>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 20:16:18 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>
> >>>> If we accept that definition for the second since that's all they had, a
> >>>> GPS bird's clock would measure the earth rotates once per 86400.000038
> >>>> seconds* while someone on the ground measures one rotation per 86400
> >>>> seconds* (exactly).
> >>> No, stupid Mike. If we accepted that definition, GPS clocks would measure
> >>> (and have measured, as GPS staff did accept it) Cs radiation frequency to
> >>> be 4 Hz higher on a satellite than on Earth (9 192 631 774 instead
> >>> 9 192 631 770, you know these numbers, don't you?). Falsifying The
> >>> Holiest Postulate and the whole Shit of your idiot guru.
> >>>
> >> You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.
> >> The physical process a Cesium atomic clock uses is the following:
> >>
> >> "The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the
> >> fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency
> >
> > You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.
> No, it is you who is lying. Once again, the second is defined to be the
> time for 9 192 631 770 cycles of the Cs frequency, from a local clock

Once again, it wasn't when your idiot guru made his moronic
prophesies; for testing them you should apply what HE meant
as "unit of time", not what YOU mean as "unit of time"; and
this is 1/24*60*60 of a day, stupid Mike.
And pretending that definition of second doesn't matter is
rather stupid, when you're invoking it so often, and your fellow idiots
samely.
..
> Since the clock is aboard the satellite, it is obviously local to it and
> isn't going anywhere. The Cs frequency is ALSO divided by 9192631774.1
> to counteract the net GR speedup when sent to Earth. On board the
> satellite, this is used to generate the 10.2299999954326 MHz signal

It is 10.23, measured both by clock on Earth and local clock of
the satellite (the one set according to the old definition, not to
your ISO idiocy). And - what to explain? That it WOULD APPEAR
to someone differently - maybe? This is the real world, stupid
Mike, not your moronic gedankens. Things often appear
differently to different people. Measurement is what matters.

On 6/16/2021 1:02 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 23:40:35 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/15/2021 3:33 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 21:08:59 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
>>>> El martes, 15 de junio de 2021 a las 14:50:06 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 20:16:18 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> If we accept that definition for the second since that's all they had, a
>>>>>> GPS bird's clock would measure the earth rotates once per 86400.000038
>>>>>> seconds* while someone on the ground measures one rotation per 86400
>>>>>> seconds* (exactly).
>>>>> No, stupid Mike. If we accepted that definition, GPS clocks would measure
>>>>> (and have measured, as GPS staff did accept it) Cs radiation frequency to
>>>>> be 4 Hz higher on a satellite than on Earth (9 192 631 774 instead
>>>>> 9 192 631 770, you know these numbers, don't you?). Falsifying The
>>>>> Holiest Postulate and the whole Shit of your idiot guru.
>>>>>
>>>> You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.
>>>> The physical process a Cesium atomic clock uses is the following:
>>>>
>>>> "The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the
>>>> fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency
>>>
>>> You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.
>> No, it is you who is lying. Once again, the second is defined to be the
>> time for 9 192 631 770 cycles of the Cs frequency, from a local clock
>
> Once again, it wasn't when your idiot guru made his moronic
> prophesies; for testing them you should apply what HE meant
> as "unit of time", not what YOU mean as "unit of time"; and
> this is 1/24*60*60 of a day, stupid Mike.

And I repeat: You are confusing time with the clock. Once we decide to
use a certain definition for a time unit, such as how long a certain
rock takes to rotate, we can define a second from that, and then we can
program super-accurate clocks to exactly match that definition of the
second. And then we can take one of these super-accurate clocks for a
ride, aboard a GPS satellite and see what happens and leave another on
the ground. And we see they get out of sync with each other. The one
in the satellite even gets out of sync with the earth itself! Remember
the first GPS prototype where some engineers couldn't decide whether
Einstein's GR was correct or not so they added a switch to switch
between Newtonian time and GR effect time? And found out that guy with
bad hair was right all along! And never added the switch to any followon
satellites, either.

>> Since the clock is aboard the satellite, it is obviously local to it and
>> isn't going anywhere. The Cs frequency is ALSO divided by 9192631774.1
>> to counteract the net GR speedup when sent to Earth. On board the
>> satellite, this is used to generate the 10.2299999954326 MHz signal
>
> It is 10.23, measured both by clock on Earth and local clock of
> the satellite (the one set according to the old definition, not to
> your ISO idiocy).

So why is it explicitly spelled out that the frequency transmitted is
10.2299999954326 MHz in Section 3.3.1.1, Frequency Plan of GPS-200J,
stupid janitor?

On Wednesday, 16 June 2021 at 09:21:29 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/16/2021 1:02 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 23:40:35 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 6/15/2021 3:33 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 21:08:59 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> >>>> El martes, 15 de junio de 2021 a las 14:50:06 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 20:16:18 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> If we accept that definition for the second since that's all they had, a
> >>>>>> GPS bird's clock would measure the earth rotates once per 86400.000038
> >>>>>> seconds* while someone on the ground measures one rotation per 86400
> >>>>>> seconds* (exactly).
> >>>>> No, stupid Mike. If we accepted that definition, GPS clocks would measure
> >>>>> (and have measured, as GPS staff did accept it) Cs radiation frequency to
> >>>>> be 4 Hz higher on a satellite than on Earth (9 192 631 774 instead
> >>>>> 9 192 631 770, you know these numbers, don't you?). Falsifying The
> >>>>> Holiest Postulate and the whole Shit of your idiot guru.
> >>>>>
> >>>> You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.
> >>>> The physical process a Cesium atomic clock uses is the following:
> >>>>
> >>>> "The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the
> >>>> fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency
> >>>
> >>> You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.
> >> No, it is you who is lying. Once again, the second is defined to be the
> >> time for 9 192 631 770 cycles of the Cs frequency, from a local clock
> >
> > Once again, it wasn't when your idiot guru made his moronic
> > prophesies; for testing them you should apply what HE meant
> > as "unit of time", not what YOU mean as "unit of time"; and
> > this is 1/24*60*60 of a day, stupid Mike.
> And I repeat: You are confusing time with the clock.

Repeat your nonsenses how many times you want to,
stupid Mike. No clock will ever show that one Earth
rotation lasts less (or more) than itself, and samely,
no clock will ever show that that 1/24*60*60 of Earth
rotation lasts less (or more) than itself. Too bad
for your idiot guru and his moronic prophesies, unable
to deal with the basic consequences of the basic
definitions he accepted.

> ride, aboard a GPS satellite and see what happens and leave another on
> the ground.

Oh, yes, and we all can see: superprecise clocks of GPS
satellites count 9 192 631 774 Cs radiation periods per the
unit of time, while superprecise clocks of GPS on Earth
count 9 192 631 770. Good bye, The Holiest Postulate.

> > It is 10.23, measured both by clock on Earth and local clock of
> > the satellite (the one set according to the old definition, not to
> > your ISO idiocy).
> So why is it explicitly spelled out that the frequency transmitted is
> 10.2299999954326 MHz in Section 3.3.1.1, Frequency Plan of GPS-200J,
> stupid janitor?

It isn't, stupid janitor. It's only spelled that it "would appear" as
10.2299999954326 [for a gedanken someone]. Does your moronic
physics often care about something that "would appear" to
someone?

Re: Which definition

In Newton's system TIME is universal i.e. it is the same everywhere,
and in all frames of reference: i.e. t'= t BY DEFINITION
and if any clock indicates otherwise, then the clock is wrong.
In this Newtonian system the speed of light relative to an observer
varies with the speed of the observer in the usual way: i.e c' = c+v
VECTOR ADDITION OF VELOCITIES APPLIES TO LIGHT just as to everything eh!

In Einstein's system THE SPEED OF LIGHT is universal i.e. it is the same

in all frames of reference i.e. c'= c BY DEFINITION
and if any clock indicates otherwise, then the clock is wrong.

Measurements can not desciminate between these twp alternative systems,
but fortunately the uncommon sense of our Mr.Wozniak can eh!

On 16/06/2021 09:40, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 16 June 2021 at 09:21:29 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/16/2021 1:02 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 23:40:35 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/2021 3:33 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 21:08:59 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
>>>>>> El martes, 15 de junio de 2021 a las 14:50:06 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 20:16:18 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we accept that definition for the second since that's all they had, a
>>>>>>>> GPS bird's clock would measure the earth rotates once per 86400.000038
>>>>>>>> seconds* while someone on the ground measures one rotation per 86400
>>>>>>>> seconds* (exactly).
>>>>>>> No, stupid Mike. If we accepted that definition, GPS clocks would measure
>>>>>>> (and have measured, as GPS staff did accept it) Cs radiation frequency to
>>>>>>> be 4 Hz higher on a satellite than on Earth (9 192 631 774 instead
>>>>>>> 9 192 631 770, you know these numbers, don't you?). Falsifying The
>>>>>>> Holiest Postulate and the whole Shit of your idiot guru.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.
>>>>>> The physical process a Cesium atomic clock uses is the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the
>>>>>> fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency
>>>>>
>>>>> You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.
>>>> No, it is you who is lying. Once again, the second is defined to be the
>>>> time for 9 192 631 770 cycles of the Cs frequency, from a local clock
>>>
>>> Once again, it wasn't when your idiot guru made his moronic
>>> prophesies; for testing them you should apply what HE meant
>>> as "unit of time", not what YOU mean as "unit of time"; and
>>> this is 1/24*60*60 of a day, stupid Mike.
>> And I repeat: You are confusing time with the clock.
>
> Repeat your nonsenses how many times you want to,
> stupid Mike. No clock will ever show that one Earth
> rotation lasts less (or more) than itself, and samely,
> no clock will ever show that that 1/24*60*60 of Earth
> rotation lasts less (or more) than itself. Too bad
> for your idiot guru and his moronic prophesies, unable
> to deal with the basic consequences of the basic
> definitions he accepted.
>
>
>> ride, aboard a GPS satellite and see what happens and leave another on
>> the ground.
>
> Oh, yes, and we all can see: superprecise clocks of GPS
> satellites count 9 192 631 774 Cs radiation periods per the
> unit of time, while superprecise clocks of GPS on Earth
> count 9 192 631 770. Good bye, The Holiest Postulate.
>
>
>>> It is 10.23, measured both by clock on Earth and local clock of
>>> the satellite (the one set according to the old definition, not to
>>> your ISO idiocy).
>> So why is it explicitly spelled out that the frequency transmitted is
>> 10.2299999954326 MHz in Section 3.3.1.1, Frequency Plan of GPS-200J,
>> stupid janitor?
>
> It isn't, stupid janitor. It's only spelled that it "would appear" as
> 10.2299999954326 [for a gedanken someone]. Does your moronic
> physics often care about something that "would appear" to
> someone?
>

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Re: Which definition
>
> In Newton's system TIME is universal i.e. it is the same everywhere,
> and in all frames of reference: i.e. t'= t BY DEFINITION
> and if any clock indicates otherwise, then the clock is wrong.

This is actually not and never has been the definition of time in Newtonian
physics. It is, and has always been true that a time standard is based on a
local repetitive physics process. Huygens, for example, built the clock on
the basis of the regular oscillations of a swinging pendulum and on the
physical law that controls the rate of that swing (where, for example, the
length of the pendulum plays the key role). In Newtonian physics, it is not
true that clocks were judged “right” by reference to some central standard
clock, nor was it ever the case that moving clocks were set to “right” by
comparison with a stationary clock (relative to the ground).

What was true was a CLAIM about nature that if there were two identically
constructed clocks ticking at the same rate as governed by their local
physical processes, then those two clock rates would be found to be equal.
This claim is testable experimentally. It turns out that the test proved
the claim false. To say that it CAN’T be false because the identity in the
claim is a DEFINITION just gets the facts wrong.

> In this Newtonian system the speed of light relative to an observer
> varies with the speed of the observer in the usual way: i.e c' = c+v
> VECTOR ADDITION OF VELOCITIES APPLIES TO LIGHT just as to everything eh!
>
> In Einstein's system THE SPEED OF LIGHT is universal i.e. it is the same
>
> in all frames of reference i.e. c'= c BY DEFINITION
> and if any clock indicates otherwise, then the clock is wrong.
>
> Measurements can not desciminate between these twp alternative systems,
> but fortunately the uncommon sense of our Mr.Wozniak can eh!
>
> On 16/06/2021 09:40, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 16 June 2021 at 09:21:29 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> On 6/16/2021 1:02 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 23:40:35 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/2021 3:33 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 21:08:59 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
>>>>>>> El martes, 15 de junio de 2021 a las 14:50:06 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 20:16:18 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If we accept that definition for the second since that's all they had, a
>>>>>>>>> GPS bird's clock would measure the earth rotates once per 86400.000038
>>>>>>>>> seconds* while someone on the ground measures one rotation per 86400
>>>>>>>>> seconds* (exactly).
>>>>>>>> No, stupid Mike. If we accepted that definition, GPS clocks would measure
>>>>>>>> (and have measured, as GPS staff did accept it) Cs radiation frequency to
>>>>>>>> be 4 Hz higher on a satellite than on Earth (9 192 631 774 instead
>>>>>>>> 9 192 631 770, you know these numbers, don't you?). Falsifying The
>>>>>>>> Holiest Postulate and the whole Shit of your idiot guru.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.
>>>>>>> The physical process a Cesium atomic clock uses is the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the
>>>>>>> fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.
>>>>> No, it is you who is lying. Once again, the second is defined to be the
>>>>> time for 9 192 631 770 cycles of the Cs frequency, from a local clock
>>>>
>>>> Once again, it wasn't when your idiot guru made his moronic
>>>> prophesies; for testing them you should apply what HE meant
>>>> as "unit of time", not what YOU mean as "unit of time"; and
>>>> this is 1/24*60*60 of a day, stupid Mike.
>>> And I repeat: You are confusing time with the clock.
>>
>> Repeat your nonsenses how many times you want to,
>> stupid Mike. No clock will ever show that one Earth
>> rotation lasts less (or more) than itself, and samely,
>> no clock will ever show that that 1/24*60*60 of Earth
>> rotation lasts less (or more) than itself. Too bad
>> for your idiot guru and his moronic prophesies, unable
>> to deal with the basic consequences of the basic
>> definitions he accepted.
>>
>>
>>> ride, aboard a GPS satellite and see what happens and leave another on
>>> the ground.
>>
>> Oh, yes, and we all can see: superprecise clocks of GPS
>> satellites count 9 192 631 774 Cs radiation periods per the
>> unit of time, while superprecise clocks of GPS on Earth
>> count 9 192 631 770. Good bye, The Holiest Postulate.
>>
>>
>>>> It is 10.23, measured both by clock on Earth and local clock of
>>>> the satellite (the one set according to the old definition, not to
>>>> your ISO idiocy).
>>> So why is it explicitly spelled out that the frequency transmitted is
>>> 10.2299999954326 MHz in Section 3.3.1.1, Frequency Plan of GPS-200J,
>>> stupid janitor?
>>
>> It isn't, stupid janitor. It's only spelled that it "would appear" as
>> 10.2299999954326 [for a gedanken someone]. Does your moronic
>> physics often care about something that "would appear" to
>> someone?
>>
>
>

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

On 17/06/2021 21:16, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Re: Which definition
>>
>> In Newton's system TIME is universal i.e. it is the same everywhere,
>> and in all frames of reference: i.e. t'= t BY DEFINITION
>> and if any clock indicates otherwise, then the clock is wrong.
>
> This is actually not and never has been the definition of time in Newtonian
> physics. It is, and has always been true that a time standard is based on a
> local repetitive physics process.

>>>>> Once again, it wasn't when your idiot guru made his moronic
>>>>> prophesies; for testing them you should apply what HE meant
>>>>> as "unit of time", not what YOU mean as "unit of time"; and
>>>>> this is 1/24*60*60 of a day,

And these Newtonian seconds are Universal, i.e. the same for both twins,
as Mr.Wozniak repeatedly tells Mssrs. Moroney and Paparios, Mr.Bodkin

>> On 16/06/2021 09:40, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 16 June 2021 at 09:21:29 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 6/16/2021 1:02 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 23:40:35 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/15/2021 3:33 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 21:08:59 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
>>>>>>>> El martes, 15 de junio de 2021 a las 14:50:06 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 20:16:18 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If we accept that definition for the second since that's all they had, a
>>>>>>>>>> GPS bird's clock would measure the earth rotates once per 86400.000038
>>>>>>>>>> seconds* while someone on the ground measures one rotation per 86400
>>>>>>>>>> seconds* (exactly).
>>>>>>>>> No, stupid Mike. If we accepted that definition, GPS clocks would measure
>>>>>>>>> (and have measured, as GPS staff did accept it) Cs radiation frequency to
>>>>>>>>> be 4 Hz higher on a satellite than on Earth (9 192 631 774 instead
>>>>>>>>> 9 192 631 770, you know these numbers, don't you?). Falsifying The
>>>>>>>>> Holiest Postulate and the whole Shit of your idiot guru.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.
>>>>>>>> The physical process a Cesium atomic clock uses is the following:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the
>>>>>>>> fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.
>>>>>> No, it is you who is lying. Once again, the second is defined to be the
>>>>>> time for 9 192 631 770 cycles of the Cs frequency, from a local clock
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again, it wasn't when your idiot guru made his moronic
>>>>> prophesies; for testing them you should apply what HE meant
>>>>> as "unit of time", not what YOU mean as "unit of time"; and
>>>>> this is 1/24*60*60 of a day, stupid Mike.
>>>> And I repeat: You are confusing time with the clock.
>>>
>>> Repeat your nonsenses how many times you want to,
>>> stupid Mike. No clock will ever show that one Earth
>>> rotation lasts less (or more) than itself, and samely,
>>> no clock will ever show that that 1/24*60*60 of Earth
>>> rotation lasts less (or more) than itself. Too bad
>>> for your idiot guru and his moronic prophesies, unable
>>> to deal with the basic consequences of the basic
>>> definitions he accepted.
>>>
>>>
>>>> ride, aboard a GPS satellite and see what happens and leave another on
>>>> the ground.
>>>
>>> Oh, yes, and we all can see: superprecise clocks of GPS
>>> satellites count 9 192 631 774 Cs radiation periods per the
>>> unit of time, while superprecise clocks of GPS on Earth
>>> count 9 192 631 770. Good bye, The Holiest Postulate.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> It is 10.23, measured both by clock on Earth and local clock of
>>>>> the satellite (the one set according to the old definition, not to
>>>>> your ISO idiocy).
>>>> So why is it explicitly spelled out that the frequency transmitted is
>>>> 10.2299999954326 MHz in Section 3.3.1.1, Frequency Plan of GPS-200J,
>>>> stupid janitor?
>>>
>>> It isn't, stupid janitor. It's only spelled that it "would appear" as
>>> 10.2299999954326 [for a gedanken someone]. Does your moronic
>>> physics often care about something that "would appear" to
>>> someone?
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17/06/2021 21:16, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Re: Which definition
>>>
>>> In Newton's system TIME is universal i.e. it is the same everywhere,
>>> and in all frames of reference: i.e. t'= t BY DEFINITION
>>> and if any clock indicates otherwise, then the clock is wrong.
>>
>> This is actually not and never has been the definition of time in Newtonian
>> physics. It is, and has always been true that a time standard is based on a
>> local repetitive physics process.
>
>
>>>>>> Once again, it wasn't when your idiot guru made his moronic
>>>>>> prophesies; for testing them you should apply what HE meant
>>>>>> as "unit of time", not what YOU mean as "unit of time"; and
>>>>>> this is 1/24*60*60 of a day,
>
>
> And these Newtonian seconds are Universal, i.e. the same for both twins,
> as Mr.Wozniak repeatedly tells Mssrs. Moroney and Paparios, Mr.Bodkin

And as Robert Winn also repeatedly says. Mr. Winn says that the “=“ sign in
t’=t makes it true by some axiom of algebra, by which I suppose he would
also insist that 2 + 19 = 47 is true by the same axiom.

Ken Seto also believes that t’=t because that’s what his common sense tells
him and that any experimental result that says otherwise is an attempt of a
scientific elite to exclude the common man.

But as I’ve replied to you, and to Winn, and to Seto, and also to Wozniak
back while I was paying attention to him, it was a testable claim by Newton
that those seconds were universal, not a matter of axiomatic truth. And the
experimental test showed that the claim was false. Now, as I understand it,
you and Wozniak and Winn and Seto would prefer it if experimental results
could be simply dismissed, the scientific method disregarded as a wholesale
failure, and the preferences of engineers be implemented that just dictates
that t’=t as a practical matter. I suppose there is never going to be any
solace for those engineers who cannot seem to sway science to do things
they way the engineers want.

>
>>> On 16/06/2021 09:40, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 16 June 2021 at 09:21:29 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>> On 6/16/2021 1:02 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 23:40:35 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/15/2021 3:33 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 21:08:59 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
>>>>>>>>> El martes, 15 de junio de 2021 a las 14:50:06 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 20:16:18 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If we accept that definition for the second since that's all they had, a
>>>>>>>>>>> GPS bird's clock would measure the earth rotates once per 86400.000038
>>>>>>>>>>> seconds* while someone on the ground measures one rotation per 86400
>>>>>>>>>>> seconds* (exactly).
>>>>>>>>>> No, stupid Mike. If we accepted that definition, GPS clocks would measure
>>>>>>>>>> (and have measured, as GPS staff did accept it) Cs radiation frequency to
>>>>>>>>>> be 4 Hz higher on a satellite than on Earth (9 192 631 774 instead
>>>>>>>>>> 9 192 631 770, you know these numbers, don't you?). Falsifying The
>>>>>>>>>> Holiest Postulate and the whole Shit of your idiot guru.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.
>>>>>>>>> The physical process a Cesium atomic clock uses is the following:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the
>>>>>>>>> fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You continue to put lies, which come from your very sick mind.
>>>>>>> No, it is you who is lying. Once again, the second is defined to be the
>>>>>>> time for 9 192 631 770 cycles of the Cs frequency, from a local clock
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once again, it wasn't when your idiot guru made his moronic
>>>>>> prophesies; for testing them you should apply what HE meant
>>>>>> as "unit of time", not what YOU mean as "unit of time"; and
>>>>>> this is 1/24*60*60 of a day, stupid Mike.
>>>>> And I repeat: You are confusing time with the clock.
>>>>
>>>> Repeat your nonsenses how many times you want to,
>>>> stupid Mike. No clock will ever show that one Earth
>>>> rotation lasts less (or more) than itself, and samely,
>>>> no clock will ever show that that 1/24*60*60 of Earth
>>>> rotation lasts less (or more) than itself. Too bad
>>>> for your idiot guru and his moronic prophesies, unable
>>>> to deal with the basic consequences of the basic
>>>> definitions he accepted.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ride, aboard a GPS satellite and see what happens and leave another on
>>>>> the ground.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, yes, and we all can see: superprecise clocks of GPS
>>>> satellites count 9 192 631 774 Cs radiation periods per the
>>>> unit of time, while superprecise clocks of GPS on Earth
>>>> count 9 192 631 770. Good bye, The Holiest Postulate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It is 10.23, measured both by clock on Earth and local clock of
>>>>>> the satellite (the one set according to the old definition, not to
>>>>>> your ISO idiocy).
>>>>> So why is it explicitly spelled out that the frequency transmitted is
>>>>> 10.2299999954326 MHz in Section 3.3.1.1, Frequency Plan of GPS-200J,
>>>>> stupid janitor?
>>>>
>>>> It isn't, stupid janitor. It's only spelled that it "would appear" as
>>>> 10.2299999954326 [for a gedanken someone]. Does your moronic
>>>> physics often care about something that "would appear" to
>>>> someone?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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

Re: Which definition

In Newton's system TIME is universal i.e. it is the same everywhere,
and in all frames of reference: i.e. t'= t BY DEFINITION
and if any clock indicates otherwise, then the clock is wrong.
In this Newtonian system the speed of light relative to an observer
varies with the speed of the observer in the usual way: i.e c' = c+v
VECTOR ADDITION OF VELOCITIES APPLIES TO LIGHT just as to everything eh!

In Einstein's system THE SPEED OF LIGHT is universal i.e. it is the same
in all frames of reference i.e. c'= c BY DEFINITION
and if any clock indicates otherwise, then the clock is wrong.

Measurements can not discriminate between these twp alternative systems,
but fortunately the uncommon sense of our Mr.Wozniak can eh!

On 15/06/2021 11:20, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> When Einstein lived and mumbled, "second" or
> "unit of time" weren't defined as Cs related, like
> today. When he was saying "unit of time" - he
> meant 1/24*60*60 of a day.
>
> Asking/answering whether his moronic mumble
> was predicting something correctly or not - we
> should consider second/(unit of time) as he meant
> it.
>
> Of course not. The old definition is making GPS/ECI
> clocks the valid ones, and they indicate t'=t.
>
> Let's consider his famous twins - with the definitions
> valid FOR HIM. Twin A on Earth has counted, let's
> say, 1000 solar days, i.e. 24*3600*1000 units of time.
> How many units of time twin B (the travelling one)
> counted?
>
> Poor mumbling idiot; basic definitions were simply
> too much for him.

On 6/19/2021 12:21 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>
>             Re: Which definition
>
> In Newton's system TIME is universal i.e. it is the same everywhere,
> and in all frames of reference: i.e.   t'= t       BY DEFINITION

Nope, t' BY DEFINITION is simply the reading of the primed frame clock
as seen in the primed frame. t'=t is the PREDICTION of Newtonian
mechanics. Winn's claim that t'=t is a definition is wrong. Just like
x', y', z', t' is the measurement in the primed frame, regardless of its
actual value. Winn is just confused, and is so confused he doesn't even
realize he's confused.

> and if any clock indicates otherwise, then the clock is wrong.

Again, that is the Galilean transform PREDICTION. If and only if the
Galilean Transform is correct, then t'=t will always be the case.

> In this Newtonian system the speed of light relative to an observer
> varies with the speed of the observer in the usual way:  i.e c' = c+v
> VECTOR ADDITION OF VELOCITIES APPLIES TO LIGHT just as to everything eh!

Since measurements show this to be wrong, we know the Newtonian system
must be wrong. That's how science works.
>
> In Einstein's system THE SPEED OF LIGHT is universal i.e. it is the same
>         in all frames of reference i.e. c'= c      BY DEFINITION
> and if any clock indicates otherwise, then the clock is wrong.

If and only if the Lorentz Transform is correct.
>
> Measurements can not discriminate between these twp alternative systems,

They can't, despite the fact that they have?
Remember, cosmic muons could not reach the ground if Newtonian mechanics
held. Particle accelerators would not work under Newtonian mechanics.

> but fortunately the uncommon sense of our Mr.Wozniak can eh!

That's what vodka does to you, eh!

On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 22:16:54 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Re: Which definition
> >
> > In Newton's system TIME is universal i.e. it is the same everywhere,
> > and in all frames of reference: i.e. t'= t BY DEFINITION
> > and if any clock indicates otherwise, then the clock is wrong.
> This is actually not and never has been the definition of time in Newtonian
> physics.

Physicists were always too dumb for serious defining anything.

> It is, and has always been true that a time standard is based on a
> local repetitive physics process.

No, it's a lie, as expected from a fanatic idiot.

> What was true was a CLAIM about nature that if there were two identically
> constructed clocks ticking at the same rate as governed by their local
> physical processes, then those two clock rates would be found to be equal.

Newton wasn't very bright, but for sure he wasn't an idiot, like
physicist this day; and his clock was a pendulum, poor
halfbrain.

On Friday, 18 June 2021 at 13:56:00 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> But as I’ve replied to you, and to Winn, and to Seto, and also to Wozniak
> back while I was paying attention to him, it was a testable claim by Newton
> that those seconds were universal, not a matter of axiomatic truth.

An idiot has said! Many times! Simply must be true.

On Saturday, 19 June 2021 at 20:38:46 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/19/2021 12:21 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> >
> > Re: Which definition
> >
> > In Newton's system TIME is universal i.e. it is the same everywhere,
> > and in all frames of reference: i.e. t'= t BY DEFINITION
> Nope, t' BY DEFINITION is simply the reading of the primed frame clock
> as seen in the primed frame.

What a pity that simple reading of GPS clocks give
simple t'=t; and some morons screaming that they
can't be clock as they don't match the prophecies
of Giant Guru - are only pissed at.

> Since measurements show this to be wrong, we know the Newtonian system

Sorry, stupid Mike; measurements of imagined twins may
show this to be wrong, but measurements of GPS specialists
show this to be right.

On 6/20/2021 3:53 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 19 June 2021 at 20:38:46 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/19/2021 12:21 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> Re: Which definition
>>>
>>> In Newton's system TIME is universal i.e. it is the same everywhere,
>>> and in all frames of reference: i.e. t'= t BY DEFINITION

>> Nope, t' BY DEFINITION is simply the reading of the primed frame clock
>> as seen in the primed frame.
>
> What a pity that simple reading of GPS clocks give
> simple t'=t; and some morons screaming that they
> can't be clock as they don't match the prophecies
> of Giant Guru - are only pissed at.

Nope, t' is BY DEFINITION the reading of the primed frame clock as seen
in the primed frame. Regardless of what it reads. t'=t is a prediction
of the Newtonian system. No matter what Winn babbles about t', n, n' etc.
>
>> Since measurements show this to be wrong, we know the Newtonian system must be wrong. That's how science works.
>
> Sorry, stupid Mike; measurements of imagined twins may
> show this to be wrong, but measurements of GPS specialists
> show this to be right.

Nope. The GPS shows the Newtonian system is wrong, even if only wrong by
38 uS/day. While no human twin has actually gone to some distant star
and back, we have seen what happens with stationary muons vs. muons in a
storage ring, and with muons raining down on earth.
>

On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 00:20:30 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/20/2021 3:53 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Saturday, 19 June 2021 at 20:38:46 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 6/19/2021 12:21 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Re: Which definition
> >>>
> >>> In Newton's system TIME is universal i.e. it is the same everywhere,
> >>> and in all frames of reference: i.e. t'= t BY DEFINITION
>
> >> Nope, t' BY DEFINITION is simply the reading of the primed frame clock
> >> as seen in the primed frame.
> >
> > What a pity that simple reading of GPS clocks give
> > simple t'=t; and some morons screaming that they
> > can't be clock as they don't match the prophecies
> > of Giant Guru - are only pissed at.
> Nope, t' is BY DEFINITION the reading of the primed frame clock as seen
> in the primed frame.

And anyone can check: when a GPS clock on the ground reading
are, for instance, 2021-06-21 00:00:00, a satellite clock has the same
reading. Good bye, The Shit.

> Regardless of what it reads. t'=t is a prediction
> of the Newtonian system.

No, it's just a simple tautology based on time unit valid
in his time. It was also valid when your idiot guru was
living and mumbling, but, of course, a simple tautology
was too much for him.

> Nope. The GPS shows the Newtonian system is wrong, even if only wrong by
> 38 uS/day.

Nope, that's a lie as expected from relativistic scum.
The readings of GPS clocks are equal, with the precision
of an acceptable error. Common sense was warning
your idiot guru.

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 12:41:35 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/15/2021 10:23 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 15:43:15 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 6/15/2021 6:20 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> When Einstein lived and mumbled, "second" or
> >>> "unit of time" weren't defined as Cs related, like
> >>> today. When he was saying "unit of time" - he
> >>> meant 1/24*60*60 of a day.
> >> Wrong. It was then defined as 1/24*60*60 of a *particular* day, namely
> >> Jan 1, 1900.
> >
> >
> > Wrong, stupid Mike.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> > "The second was thus defined as "the fraction 1/31,556,925.9747 of the
> > tropical year [not day - MW] for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time"".
> > But such definition was established in 1960. Not in 1905, stupid Mike.
> >
> > The only second known in the time of your idiot guru was
> > 1/24*60*60 of a day.
> No, scientists already knew by then that 1/86164 of a sidereal day was a
> more accurate way of measuring time. I don't know if they had more
> accurate time measurements than that, but they must have, since they
> already suspected earth's rotation wasn't consistent (wobbly or slowing
> down). Time, however, was then defined by the railroads, or UK Greenwich
> Observatory, or Washington DC solar time, or local solar time, depending.

No stupid Mike, they considered (wrongly) that a transition of the Cs 133 atom at the hyperfine level represents a universal interval of time. It is not. That’s why they have this shit of time dilation. The only time that is universal is absolute time. That’s why they use absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock. They do that by inlcresing the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This makes the passage of 9,192,631,774.4647 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the GPS clock corresponds to the passage of 9,192,631,770 periods of CS 133 radiation of the ground clock.
>
> Don’t confuse the clock (earth) with they have this shit of time dilation. time itself. Like the decay of
> radioactive elements certainly does not depend on the rotation of some
> big rock, but at the time that rock may have been the best clock
> available to measure it.
>
> Einstein's 1905 paper mentions "second" (as unit of time) 4 times, in
> two pairs, both times showing how a moving clock is seen as running slow
> by a certain amount of "seconds per second". Meaning, of course, if the
> same definition of second was used each time, the definition cancels and
> the amount is a ratio, a pure number. Thus the actual definition is
> pretty much irrelevant. So...do you even have a point (not the one on
> top of your head) ?