On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 15:17:51 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/4/2021 1:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 00:12:03 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> >> Did you forget about the first prototype GPS satellite? They tried it
> >> with and without the GR correction,
> >
> > Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction,
> Why do you repeat such a false claim? I don't have any "moronic
> religion". Relativity is the reason for the GR correction, it REQUIRES
> the correction, not forbids it!

Acccording to your Shit, Cs clocks to be set to 9 192 631 770 -
always, everywhere. Not to 9 192 631 774. 9 192 631 774 is
incorrect, improper etc. Forbidden.
And no surprise since after the correction measurement results
doesn't fit it.

> > to 9 192 631 770 - always, everywhere.
> Oh that's right. You have the events exactly reversed and use the
> failure of the Newtonian settings

9 192 631 770 is not any Newtonian setting. It's your fucken
ISO idiocy, of 1968 (afair).

> The first GPS prototype had the ability to turn GR correction on and
> off. The results were:
> GR correction initially off: Newtonian time and space assumed. Clock
> ticked at 9192631770 Cs cycles/second.

It's not any Newtonian assumption, stupid Mike. It's your fucken
ISO idiocy of 1968(afair) And - right in previous post - you described
this situation before switching as EXACTLY matching the prophecies
of your idiot guru.

> GR correction on: GR time dilation assumed. Clock ticked at 9192631774.1

Bullshit. According to your Shit and its Holiest Postulate the clock
settings should be the same everywhere, and according to ISO
it should be 9192631770. These "GR" corrections are directly
FORBIDDEN by your Shit, and no surprise since after the correction
measurement results doesn't fit it.
Our stupid Mike has the events reversed, as expected from a
relativistic piece of shit. The correction that made GPS working
is a gelilean implication of common sense. Poor stupid Mike
is delusional.

> > Stupid Mike, those clocks "confirming" your idiocies were incorrect.
> > They had to be corrected.
> > Do you deny it?
> I deny YOUR (incorrect) VERSION of the events, of course.

Get conscious, stupid Mike. Just in this post you've
admitted 2 times that the clocks needed a correction.
Yes they did. Their results are to be discarded.

> Once again: Newtonian "spacetime" initially assumed. It didn't work.

Once again, a lie. Your Holiest Postulate and ISO idiocies
were assumed. It didn't work. They "switched" - to the
old Earth related second and galilean time.

> > Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction,
> Wrong. GR requires the correction and explains how to compute it.

Wrong. According to your Shit and its Holiest Postulate the clock
settings should be the same everywhere, and according to ISO
it should be 9192631770. Your Shit has predicted no corrections.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 15:17:51 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/4/2021 1:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 00:12:03 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>>> Did you forget about the first prototype GPS satellite? They tried it
>>>> with and without the GR correction,
>>>
>>> Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction,
>> Why do you repeat such a false claim? I don't have any "moronic
>> religion". Relativity is the reason for the GR correction, it REQUIRES
>> the correction, not forbids it!
>
> Acccording to your Shit, Cs clocks to be set to 9 192 631 770 -

Out and out bullshit.

> always, everywhere. Not to 9 192 631 774. 9 192 631 774 is
> incorrect, improper etc. Forbidden.
> And no surprise since after the correction measurement results
> doesn't fit it.
>
>>> to 9 192 631 770 - always, everywhere.
>> Oh that's right. You have the events exactly reversed and use the
>> failure of the Newtonian settings
>
> 9 192 631 770 is not any Newtonian setting. It's your fucken
> ISO idiocy, of 1968 (afair).
>
>
>
>> The first GPS prototype had the ability to turn GR correction on and
>> off. The results were:
>> GR correction initially off: Newtonian time and space assumed. Clock
>> ticked at 9192631770 Cs cycles/second.
>
> It's not any Newtonian assumption, stupid Mike. It's your fucken
> ISO idiocy of 1968(afair) And - right in previous post - you described
> this situation before switching as EXACTLY matching the prophecies
> of your idiot guru.
>
>
>> GR correction on: GR time dilation assumed. Clock ticked at 9192631774.1
>
> Bullshit. According to your Shit and its Holiest Postulate the clock
> settings should be the same everywhere, and according to ISO
> it should be 9192631770. These "GR" corrections are directly
> FORBIDDEN by your Shit, and no surprise since after the correction
> measurement results doesn't fit it.
> Our stupid Mike has the events reversed, as expected from a
> relativistic piece of shit. The correction that made GPS working
> is a gelilean implication of common sense. Poor stupid Mike
> is delusional.
>
>>> Stupid Mike, those clocks "confirming" your idiocies were incorrect.
>>> They had to be corrected.
>>> Do you deny it?
>> I deny YOUR (incorrect) VERSION of the events, of course.
>
> Get conscious, stupid Mike. Just in this post you've
> admitted 2 times that the clocks needed a correction.
> Yes they did. Their results are to be discarded.
>
>> Once again: Newtonian "spacetime" initially assumed. It didn't work.
>
> Once again, a lie. Your Holiest Postulate and ISO idiocies
> were assumed. It didn't work. They "switched" - to the
> old Earth related second and galilean time.
>
>>> Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction,
>> Wrong. GR requires the correction and explains how to compute it.
>
> Wrong. According to your Shit and its Holiest Postulate the clock
> settings should be the same everywhere, and according to ISO
> it should be 9192631770. Your Shit has predicted no corrections.
>
>

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

On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 16:05:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 15:17:51 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 11/4/2021 1:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 00:12:03 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Did you forget about the first prototype GPS satellite? They tried it
> >>>> with and without the GR correction,
> >>>
> >>> Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction,
> >> Why do you repeat such a false claim? I don't have any "moronic
> >> religion". Relativity is the reason for the GR correction, it REQUIRES
> >> the correction, not forbids it!
> >
> > Acccording to your Shit, Cs clocks to be set to 9 192 631 770 -
> Out and out bullshit.

So, how, poor trash?

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 16:05:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 15:17:51 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 11/4/2021 1:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 00:12:03 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you forget about the first prototype GPS satellite? They tried it
>>>>>> with and without the GR correction,
>>>>>
>>>>> Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction,
>>>> Why do you repeat such a false claim? I don't have any "moronic
>>>> religion". Relativity is the reason for the GR correction, it REQUIRES
>>>> the correction, not forbids it!
>>>
>>> Acccording to your Shit, Cs clocks to be set to 9 192 631 770 -
>> Out and out bullshit.
>
> So, how, poor trash?
>
>

Exactly what I said.

If you want to build a clock that has the appellation “standard”, then you
follow a standard. If you want to build a detuned clock for special
purpose, which won’t then have the appellation “standard”, there is nothing
stopping you.

I can also build cabinets that have a standard depth, and I can build
cabinets that have a nonstandard depth, and there is nothing that is
forbidding me from doing either or both.

You live in a fantasy world where imaginary people are telling you what you
must and must not do, and you react against this by rebelling, and you
should get treatment for this mental disorder if you’re not already doing
that.

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

On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 17:24:01 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 16:05:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 15:17:51 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 11/4/2021 1:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 00:12:03 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Did you forget about the first prototype GPS satellite? They tried it
> >>>>>> with and without the GR correction,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction,
> >>>> Why do you repeat such a false claim? I don't have any "moronic
> >>>> religion". Relativity is the reason for the GR correction, it REQUIRES
> >>>> the correction, not forbids it!
> >>>
> >>> Acccording to your Shit, Cs clocks to be set to 9 192 631 770 -
> >> Out and out bullshit.
> >
> > So, how, poor trash?
> >
> >
> Exactly what I said.
>
> If you want to build a clock that has the appellation “standard”, then you
> follow a standard. If you want to build a detuned clock for special
> purpose, which won’t then have the appellation “standard”, there is nothing
> stopping you.

Sure, nothing is stopping me, but some cult of brainwashed
halfbrains following an insane crazie is trying to stop me.
They say "LAWS OF NATURE!!!!". They say "We're FORCED!!"
And many other idiocies.
So, your moronic physics has never said a word about how
Cs clocks should be set. Right, poor halfbrain?

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 17:24:01 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 16:05:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 15:17:51 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/4/2021 1:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 00:12:03 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did you forget about the first prototype GPS satellite? They tried it
>>>>>>>> with and without the GR correction,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction,
>>>>>> Why do you repeat such a false claim? I don't have any "moronic
>>>>>> religion". Relativity is the reason for the GR correction, it REQUIRES
>>>>>> the correction, not forbids it!
>>>>>
>>>>> Acccording to your Shit, Cs clocks to be set to 9 192 631 770 -
>>>> Out and out bullshit.
>>>
>>> So, how, poor trash?
>>>
>>>
>> Exactly what I said.
>>
>> If you want to build a clock that has the appellation “standard”, then you
>> follow a standard. If you want to build a detuned clock for special
>> purpose, which won’t then have the appellation “standard”, there is nothing
>> stopping you.
>
> Sure, nothing is stopping me, but some cult of brainwashed
> halfbrains following an insane crazie is trying to stop me.

No they’re not.

Nobody cares if you participate in science or not. Nobody cares if you’d
like to say stupid things out of spite. Nobody cares if you stop or not.

> They say "LAWS OF NATURE!!!!". They say "We're FORCED!!"

What THEY choose has nothing to do with you.

> And many other idiocies.
> So, your moronic physics has never said a word about how
> Cs clocks should be set. Right, poor halfbrain?

Only if the clock is to have the appellation “standard”. If the application
does not require a standard clock, then there’s no such “should”. Is this
hard for you? Not black and white enough for you?

>
>
>

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

On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 18:47:59 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 17:24:01 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 16:05:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 15:17:51 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/4/2021 1:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 00:12:03 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Did you forget about the first prototype GPS satellite? They tried it
> >>>>>>>> with and without the GR correction,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction,
> >>>>>> Why do you repeat such a false claim? I don't have any "moronic
> >>>>>> religion". Relativity is the reason for the GR correction, it REQUIRES
> >>>>>> the correction, not forbids it!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Acccording to your Shit, Cs clocks to be set to 9 192 631 770 -
> >>>> Out and out bullshit.
> >>>
> >>> So, how, poor trash?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Exactly what I said.
> >>
> >> If you want to build a clock that has the appellation “standard”, then you
> >> follow a standard. If you want to build a detuned clock for special
> >> purpose, which won’t then have the appellation “standard”, there is nothing
> >> stopping you.
> >
> > Sure, nothing is stopping me, but some cult of brainwashed
> > halfbrains following an insane crazie is trying to stop me.
> No they’re not.

Of course they are. You know, if we don't make our
clocks the proper way of your idiot guru - his prophecies
will never fulfill:(. What a pity it would be if such wise
prophecies of such a giant guru wouldn't fulfill...

> > They say "LAWS OF NATURE!!!!". They say "We're FORCED!!"
> What THEY choose has nothing to do with you.

But they are THE COMMUNITY OF PHYSICISTS!!!! They
are like captains of a transatlantic - first after God!!
If they scream "we're FORCED!!" - we're FORCED for
sure.

> > And many other idiocies.
> > So, your moronic physics has never said a word about how
> > Cs clocks should be set. Right, poor halfbrain?

> Only if the clock is to have the appellation “standard”.

:)
And it never says which settings are the "correct" ones?
The "proper" ones? Are you sure, Bod?

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 18:47:59 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 17:24:01 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 16:05:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 15:17:51 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2021 1:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 00:12:03 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Did you forget about the first prototype GPS satellite? They tried it
>>>>>>>>>> with and without the GR correction,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction,
>>>>>>>> Why do you repeat such a false claim? I don't have any "moronic
>>>>>>>> religion". Relativity is the reason for the GR correction, it REQUIRES
>>>>>>>> the correction, not forbids it!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Acccording to your Shit, Cs clocks to be set to 9 192 631 770 -
>>>>>> Out and out bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, how, poor trash?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Exactly what I said.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to build a clock that has the appellation “standard”, then you
>>>> follow a standard. If you want to build a detuned clock for special
>>>> purpose, which won’t then have the appellation “standard”, there is nothing
>>>> stopping you.
>>>
>>> Sure, nothing is stopping me, but some cult of brainwashed
>>> halfbrains following an insane crazie is trying to stop me.
>> No they’re not.
>
> Of course they are. You know, if we don't make our
> clocks the proper way of your idiot guru - his prophecies
> will never fulfill:(. What a pity it would be if such wise
> prophecies of such a giant guru wouldn't fulfill...

How to set clocks for different applications has nothing whatsoever to do
with the validity of relativity. You’re just foaming at the mouth now.

>
>>> They say "LAWS OF NATURE!!!!". They say "We're FORCED!!"
>> What THEY choose has nothing to do with you.
>
> But they are THE COMMUNITY OF PHYSICISTS!!!!

And you’re not. Relax. Nobody invited you or expected you to participate in
physics. If you don’t want to participate, then walk away.

> They
> are like captains of a transatlantic - first after God!!

More foaming at the mouth.

> If they scream "we're FORCED!!" - we're FORCED for
> sure.

No. No one is forcing you to do anything. There is literally nothing for
you to rebel against about this.

>
>>> And many other idiocies.
>>> So, your moronic physics has never said a word about how
>>> Cs clocks should be set. Right, poor halfbrain?
>
>> Only if the clock is to have the appellation “standard”.
>
> :)
> And it never says which settings are the "correct" ones?
> The "proper" ones? Are you sure, Bod?

That’s right. It depends on the application. Don’t imagine forcings where
there aren’t any. Struggling against imaginary chains just makes you look
like you’re having a seizure.

>
>

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

On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 20:54:01 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 18:47:59 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 17:24:01 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 16:05:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 15:17:51 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 11/4/2021 1:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 00:12:03 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Did you forget about the first prototype GPS satellite? They tried it
> >>>>>>>>>> with and without the GR correction,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction,
> >>>>>>>> Why do you repeat such a false claim? I don't have any "moronic
> >>>>>>>> religion". Relativity is the reason for the GR correction, it REQUIRES
> >>>>>>>> the correction, not forbids it!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Acccording to your Shit, Cs clocks to be set to 9 192 631 770 -
> >>>>>> Out and out bullshit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, how, poor trash?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Exactly what I said.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you want to build a clock that has the appellation “standard”, then you
> >>>> follow a standard. If you want to build a detuned clock for special
> >>>> purpose, which won’t then have the appellation “standard”, there is nothing
> >>>> stopping you.
> >>>
> >>> Sure, nothing is stopping me, but some cult of brainwashed
> >>> halfbrains following an insane crazie is trying to stop me.
> >> No they’re not.
> >
> > Of course they are. You know, if we don't make our
> > clocks the proper way of your idiot guru - his prophecies
> > will never fulfill:(. What a pity it would be if such wise
> > prophecies of such a giant guru wouldn't fulfill...
> How to set clocks for different applications has nothing whatsoever to do
> with the validity of relativity.

Sorry, Bod, but you're an idiot. You're validating your Shit
with measurements. You're measuring with clocks.
"Correct" setting of the clocks is vital to your validation.

> > If they scream "we're FORCED!!" - we're FORCED for
> > sure.
> No. No one is forcing you to do anything.

Sure, your idiot gurus are only trying. And casting insults
when it doesn't work. But they succeeded with you.

> >>> So, your moronic physics has never said a word about how
> >>> Cs clocks should be set. Right, poor halfbrain?
> >
> >> Only if the clock is to have the appellation “standard”.
> >
> > :)
> > And it never says which settings are the "correct" ones?
> > The "proper" ones? Are you sure, Bod?
> That’s right.

No, that's not. You're just a delusional idiot living
in a delusional world. But, of course, it was
obvious before.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 20:54:01 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 18:47:59 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 17:24:01 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 16:05:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 15:17:51 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2021 1:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 00:12:03 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you forget about the first prototype GPS satellite? They tried it
>>>>>>>>>>>> with and without the GR correction,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction,
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you repeat such a false claim? I don't have any "moronic
>>>>>>>>>> religion". Relativity is the reason for the GR correction, it REQUIRES
>>>>>>>>>> the correction, not forbids it!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Acccording to your Shit, Cs clocks to be set to 9 192 631 770 -
>>>>>>>> Out and out bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, how, poor trash?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly what I said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to build a clock that has the appellation “standard”, then you
>>>>>> follow a standard. If you want to build a detuned clock for special
>>>>>> purpose, which won’t then have the appellation “standard”, there is nothing
>>>>>> stopping you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, nothing is stopping me, but some cult of brainwashed
>>>>> halfbrains following an insane crazie is trying to stop me.
>>>> No they’re not.
>>>
>>> Of course they are. You know, if we don't make our
>>> clocks the proper way of your idiot guru - his prophecies
>>> will never fulfill:(. What a pity it would be if such wise
>>> prophecies of such a giant guru wouldn't fulfill...
>> How to set clocks for different applications has nothing whatsoever to do
>> with the validity of relativity.
>
> Sorry, Bod, but you're an idiot. You're validating your Shit
> with measurements. You're measuring with clocks.
> "Correct" setting of the clocks is vital to your validation.

Only with clocks aimed for that application in mind. Set a clock
differently so that it no longer has the appellation “standard” for the
sake of some application’s needs, and the validity of relativity is both
unaffected and irrelevant.

>
>
>>> If they scream "we're FORCED!!" - we're FORCED for
>>> sure.
>> No. No one is forcing you to do anything.
>
> Sure, your idiot gurus are only trying.

No, they’re really not. No physicist cares at all whether you buy into
physics or not. No one is even trying to force you into anything. The
chains you feel are imaginary.

> And casting insults
> when it doesn't work. But they succeeded with you.
>
>>>>> So, your moronic physics has never said a word about how
>>>>> Cs clocks should be set. Right, poor halfbrain?
>>>
>>>> Only if the clock is to have the appellation “standard”.
>>>
>>> :)
>>> And it never says which settings are the "correct" ones?
>>> The "proper" ones? Are you sure, Bod?
>> That’s right.
>
> No, that's not.

So where does physics say which settings are correct and proper? Please
don’t say “proper time”. “Proper time” is a jargon term that has nothing to
do with how to set a clock. If you don’t know what proper time means, then
don’t guess. You’ll only make a fool of yourself.

And don’t say ISO. ISO sets a standard for a clock that needs the
appellation “standard”, but as already described to you, anyone is allowed
to make a clock for special-purpose applications that do not need a
standard clock.

These restrictions you rebel against are all imaginary. You could get help
for that.

> You're just a delusional idiot living
> in a delusional world. But, of course, it was
> obvious before.
>
>

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

Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> No, that's not.
>
> So where does physics say which settings are correct and proper? Please
> don’t say “proper time”. “Proper time” is a jargon term that has nothing
> to do with how to set a clock. If you don’t know what proper time means,
> then don’t guess. You’ll only make a fool of yourself.

what happened with that relativity guy, named kenseto. He stole theories
and everything.

Colin Hare <Colin@Hare.ca> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>> No, that's not.
>>
>> So where does physics say which settings are correct and proper? Please
>> don’t say “proper time”. “Proper time” is a jargon term that has nothing
>> to do with how to set a clock. If you don’t know what proper time means,
>> then don’t guess. You’ll only make a fool of yourself.
>
> what happened with that relativity guy, named kenseto. He stole theories
> and everything.
>

Ken Seto has either declined so much that he is unable or unwilling to
post, or he has improved and finally arrived on how much time and effort he
wasted on his boondoggle.

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

On November 2, Townes Olson wrote:
> For example, each train car is straight and has rest length L, and the length
> of the train is the sum of the lengths of the cars (neglecting the joining links).
> A train that is moving along a curved track is not a single object at rest in
> any inertial coordinate system, since each car is moving in a different direction
> (and accelerating).
> To explain length contraction in this case, consider a circular track, one mile
> in length as measured around the track, and suppose we have a set of
> 100 stationary train cars, connected bumper-to-bumper all the way around
> the track. Now suppose we slowly accelerate this ring of cars up to speed v.
> The cars must break apart (or be stretched) at some point (or else jump
> the tracks), because they are contracted in the direction of their motion by
> the factor sqrt(1-v^2), so the sum of the lengths of the un-stretched cars is
> just sqrt(1-v^2) mile.

Does this example produce another paradox?

Seen from the track frame, the train tries to contract. But
it's fixed at one mile by the track, hence it stretches, until
it fractures at the weakest points.

From the train, the track length (circumference) contracts.
Attached to the train wheels, it forces the train to contract, until
it fractures, under compression.

??

Analogous to the Corvette in the garage? The car contracts,
and the garage contracts... in that case, the car has front and
rear fenders, the garage has front and rear doors. Relative
simultaneity of the door sequences explains it. That doesn't
apply to the train.

Analogous to Bell's spaceship? The rope snaps under tension.
In that case, the explanation also involves relative simultaneity,
in the sequence of accelerations of the rockets. Doesn't apply
to the train.

It's a brain twister -

--
Rich

On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 6:53:00 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> From the train, the track length (circumference) contracts.

As already explained, "the train" is not a single entity at rest in any inertial frame, it consists of cars moving in all different directions, and in terms of the inertial coordinates in which one of the cars is momentarily at rest the track is contracted into an ellipse shape, and the cars one quarter of the way around are moving at speed v in this frame and those half way around are moving at speed 2v, and the net effect is exactly the same, i..e., the total spatial length of the train at a given instant of this system is less than the length of the (elliptical) track at a given instant of this system.

The same applies to the inertial coordinates in which any other car is momentarily at rest. Of course, each car is accelerating (as also mentioned). All scenarios like this are trivial, just apply the Lorentz transformation and you won't go wrong.

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 10:40:35 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:
> On November 2, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You apparently have no conception of what an isomorphism is.
> > With respect to the logarithm, addition and multiplication are isomorphisms.
> Incorrect.
> The derivative of addition with respect to the logarithm
> is an isomorphism.
> But the derivative of multiplication with respect to the
> logarithm is a homomorphism.
>
> > Length contraction is an illusion, one that we can measure, but an illusion, nonetheless.
>
> How do you tell the difference between a reality measurement
> and an illusion measurement?
>
> --
> Rich

That's kind of the point. We should not be intimidated by the idea that some relativistic effect may be an illusion. Coming from the same geometry, reality itself can be seen to be an illusion as well. So, the truncated measurements of an illusion are as valid as the static, complete measurement of the illusion of reality. This is not philosophical mumbo-jumbo. It is based on the facts and properties of a hyperbolic rotation, otherwise called a Lorentz Transformation. As we know it, it is the real part of the transform, the hyperbolic part. And not contained in relativity, but deeply embedded in the geometry, is an isomorphism between circular angles and hyperbolic angles. Hermann Bondi built his k-calculus version of special relativity out of the eigenvalues of the Lorentz matrix. The natural log of k is the hyperbolic rotation angle, which we call rapidity. Any Lorentz matrix which is not the identity matrix implies two different velocities. The matrix is a boost. Whether it is a formula describing physical events or a hypothetical change of reference frame doesn't matter. For reasons very similar to why we can't detect absolute velocity, we can't detect absolute rapidity, either.. Because rapidity defines velocity, and an absolute rapidity would actually be equivalent to knowing absolute velocity.

Fortunately, it can be proven using simple geometry that rapidity combines linearly, unlike velocity. So, what matters is the difference in rapidity - the boost. And this boost is the natural log of the eigenvalue of the Lorentz matrix that generates that same boost. Which brings us to how to distinguish real from illusion. The only things that are real are things that have zero relative rapidity. Everything else is progressively more illusion. The way we tell is with the isomorphism of the rapidity, known as the gudermannian. For 0 rapidity, the gudermannian is 0. So when we compare phase vectors of two frames, we use the dot product to determine how much two vectors have in common. When the phase angle is 0, relative velocity is 0, and the cosine of the phase angle is the magnitude of the dot product. At zero velocity, the gudermannian, or tilt angle, is also 0, and the cos(0) = 1. The Newtonian universe is real, but it is still a cosine projection, making it an illusion. But we agree that you can measure some illusions. In any case, anything in the Newtonian universe cannot move fast enough to even nudge the tilt angle. Relativistic effects are the result of a Lorentz boost to high velocity. The effect is specified clearly as v = c sin(tilt) = βc. For this value of β, the Lorentz factor, γ, is the sec(tilt), and 1/γ = cos(tilt). So, if tilt is the difference in phase angle between two frames, the projection of the moving one onto the reference frame is r' = r cos(tilt), or r = r' sec(tilt) = γr'. That's exactly what special relativity claims about measured r', but we can see the bigger picture where the radius vector r is rigidly rotated, and r' is just the projection that is still parallel. Since we already have the experimental data, a comparison reveals that we are measuring 100% of what the universe projects as real. That 100% is the cosine of the tilt angle. So, what we measure must be projected by a radius vector of invariant magnitude. In buzz words, "Nothing shrinks in magnitude, but phase angle varies with relative velocity."

As the phase angle rotates, the proportions of the real/axial projection and the imaginary/circular projection vary as the cosine and sine of the phase angle. We have identified the gudermannian of the hyperbolic rotation angle as tilt, and the tanh(rapidity) = sin(tilt) = v/c. The relationship between rapidity and its gudermannian can also be expressed as: γ sin(tilt) = γv/c = Proper velocity/c = sinh(rapidity) = tan(tilt). So, in answer to the question, the tilt angle, which is the gudermannian of rapidity, determines how much of what the observer measures is real, relative to the observer. This is how multiple observers can all view and measure the same object and all get different measurements without a contradiction. It is the phase angle of spacetime, which is the same magnitude for both observers in any pair of frames, which distorts uncontracted measurements in the frame of the object into distorted measurements from the frame of the relatively moving observer. That same spacetime that crackpot skeptics deny exists, or at best it has no properties. It IS special relativity.

A word before I sign off, about the crackpot skeptics that lurk here. I would probably be the first one to admit that my approach could be wrong. After all, it's my theory, and I am biased in favor of it. But, one thing for damnsure, the flaw won't be found by any of these bozos. To find an actual flaw you would have to understand my theory better than I do. And they are so steeped in dogma, they just want to kill the heresy. Watch. Within minutes of the post time of this message they'll be swarming like flies with their insults and circular logic.

On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 8:53:00 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> On November 2, Townes Olson wrote:
> > For example, each train car is straight and has rest length L, and the length
> > of the train is the sum of the lengths of the cars (neglecting the joining links).
> > A train that is moving along a curved track is not a single object at rest in
> > any inertial coordinate system, since each car is moving in a different direction
> > (and accelerating).
> > To explain length contraction in this case, consider a circular track, one mile
> > in length as measured around the track, and suppose we have a set of
> > 100 stationary train cars, connected bumper-to-bumper all the way around
> > the track. Now suppose we slowly accelerate this ring of cars up to speed v.
> > The cars must break apart (or be stretched) at some point (or else jump
> > the tracks), because they are contracted in the direction of their motion by
> > the factor sqrt(1-v^2), so the sum of the lengths of the un-stretched cars is
> > just sqrt(1-v^2) mile.
>
> Does this example produce another paradox?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_thought_experiments#Non-Euclidean_geometry_and_the_rotating_disk
> Seen from the track frame, the train tries to contract. But
> it's fixed at one mile by the track, hence it stretches, until
> it fractures at the weakest points.
>
> From the train, the track length (circumference) contracts.
> Attached to the train wheels, it forces the train to contract, until
> it fractures, under compression.
>
> ??
>
> Analogous to the Corvette in the garage? The car contracts,
> and the garage contracts... in that case, the car has front and
> rear fenders, the garage has front and rear doors. Relative
> simultaneity of the door sequences explains it. That doesn't
> apply to the train.
>
> Analogous to Bell's spaceship? The rope snaps under tension.
> In that case, the explanation also involves relative simultaneity,
> in the sequence of accelerations of the rockets. Doesn't apply
> to the train.
>
>
> It's a brain twister -
>
> --
> Rich

On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 22:00:16 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 20:54:01 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 18:47:59 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 17:24:01 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 16:05:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 15:17:51 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2021 1:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 00:12:03 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Did you forget about the first prototype GPS satellite? They tried it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with and without the GR correction,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction,
> >>>>>>>>>> Why do you repeat such a false claim? I don't have any "moronic
> >>>>>>>>>> religion". Relativity is the reason for the GR correction, it REQUIRES
> >>>>>>>>>> the correction, not forbids it!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Acccording to your Shit, Cs clocks to be set to 9 192 631 770 -
> >>>>>>>> Out and out bullshit.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, how, poor trash?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Exactly what I said.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you want to build a clock that has the appellation “standard”, then you
> >>>>>> follow a standard. If you want to build a detuned clock for special
> >>>>>> purpose, which won’t then have the appellation “standard”, there is nothing
> >>>>>> stopping you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure, nothing is stopping me, but some cult of brainwashed
> >>>>> halfbrains following an insane crazie is trying to stop me.
> >>>> No they’re not.
> >>>
> >>> Of course they are. You know, if we don't make our
> >>> clocks the proper way of your idiot guru - his prophecies
> >>> will never fulfill:(. What a pity it would be if such wise
> >>> prophecies of such a giant guru wouldn't fulfill...
> >> How to set clocks for different applications has nothing whatsoever to do
> >> with the validity of relativity.
> >
> > Sorry, Bod, but you're an idiot. You're validating your Shit
> > with measurements. You're measuring with clocks.
> > "Correct" setting of the clocks is vital to your validation.
> Only with clocks aimed for that application in mind.

Sure, Bod, only with clocks aimed to count/measure time.
I.e. - only with all of them.

Set a clock
> differently so that it no longer has the appellation “standard”

And no longer the appelation "correct", and no longer the
appelation "proper"... your idiot gurus have decided, that
standard, correct, proper clock is the one confirming their
delusions. And whoever is objecting is a stupid nazi
crank.

> >>> If they scream "we're FORCED!!" - we're FORCED for
> >>> sure.
> >> No. No one is forcing you to do anything.
> >
> > Sure, your idiot gurus are only trying.
> No, they’re really not. No physicist cares at all whether you buy into
> physics or not.

Sure, sure, why would he care whether his moronic mumble
is bought or not? Great Popper didn't mention that he would care,
so for sure he doesn't care.
Or maybe you're a delusional idiot living in a delusional world...

> > No, that's not.
> So where does physics say which settings are correct and proper? Please
> don’t say “proper time”. “Proper time” is a jargon term that has nothing to
> do with how to set a clock.

Odd, you're a true idiot. But, of course, there is nothing to worry
about, "idiot" is a worthless jargon term without any scientific
definition.
Request refused, anyway. Proper time, ISO definition, hundreds
of other occasions.

On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 7:31:43 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> Nothing shrinks in magnitude...

Then why do the trains cars break apart? Remember, according to Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism (1870s), the magnitude of the physical extent of a material object composed of atoms and molecules contracts in the direction of motion by the factor sqrt(1-v^2), and this has been abundantly verified empirically. To claim that this is not physical contraction is simply false. Basing your beliefs on a manifestly false premise is not a good idea.

> I would probably be the first one to admit that my approach could be wrong.

It's easy to admit that your beliefs *could* be wrong, but it takes real intellectual integrity to admit that your beliefs *are* wrong... as yours manifestly are. You have not demonstrated that level of integrity.

> After all, it's my theory... To find an actual flaw you would have to understand my theory...

But you don't appear to *have* a theory. You talk a little about rapidity, which is Relativity 101, and then you talk about Bondi's popularization, which (again) is Relativity 101, and you mention that the Lorentz transformation (which you call a transform for some reason) can be expressed as a hyperbolic rotation (Relativity 101), then you comment that transformations have eigenvectors, ... and then after regaling us for several paragraphs of these elementary recitations (albeit somewhat garbled), you announce "Therefore nothing shrinks". That isn't a theory, that's just someone reciting some words he has heard, and then concluding with a complete non sequitur. And when I explain things to you clearly and completely, you say you are "bored" and run away. Why not respond to the substantive replies you receive?

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 22:00:16 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 20:54:01 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 18:47:59 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 17:24:01 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 16:05:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 15:17:51 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2021 1:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 00:12:03 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you forget about the first prototype GPS satellite? They tried it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with and without the GR correction,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your moronic religion is forbidding this "GR" correction,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you repeat such a false claim? I don't have any "moronic
>>>>>>>>>>>> religion". Relativity is the reason for the GR correction, it REQUIRES
>>>>>>>>>>>> the correction, not forbids it!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Acccording to your Shit, Cs clocks to be set to 9 192 631 770 -
>>>>>>>>>> Out and out bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, how, poor trash?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Exactly what I said.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you want to build a clock that has the appellation “standard”, then you
>>>>>>>> follow a standard. If you want to build a detuned clock for special
>>>>>>>> purpose, which won’t then have the appellation “standard”, there is nothing
>>>>>>>> stopping you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, nothing is stopping me, but some cult of brainwashed
>>>>>>> halfbrains following an insane crazie is trying to stop me.
>>>>>> No they’re not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course they are. You know, if we don't make our
>>>>> clocks the proper way of your idiot guru - his prophecies
>>>>> will never fulfill:(. What a pity it would be if such wise
>>>>> prophecies of such a giant guru wouldn't fulfill...
>>>> How to set clocks for different applications has nothing whatsoever to do
>>>> with the validity of relativity.
>>>
>>> Sorry, Bod, but you're an idiot. You're validating your Shit
>>> with measurements. You're measuring with clocks.
>>> "Correct" setting of the clocks is vital to your validation.
>> Only with clocks aimed for that application in mind.
>
> Sure, Bod, only with clocks aimed to count/measure time.
> I.e. - only with all of them.

Any engineer that cannot figure out that different applications will
require different settings should have his license revoked.

>
> Set a clock
>> differently so that it no longer has the appellation “standard”
>
> And no longer the appelation "correct",

Nope, just “standard”. My nonstandard-depth cabinets are still correct and
well suited for the intended purpose. They’re just not standard depth.

> and no longer the
> appelation "proper"... your idiot gurus have decided, that
> standard, correct, proper clock is the one confirming their
> delusions. And whoever is objecting is a stupid nazi
> crank.
>
>
>
>>>>> If they scream "we're FORCED!!" - we're FORCED for
>>>>> sure.
>>>> No. No one is forcing you to do anything.
>>>
>>> Sure, your idiot gurus are only trying.
>> No, they’re really not. No physicist cares at all whether you buy into
>> physics or not.
>
> Sure, sure, why would he care whether his moronic mumble
> is bought or not?

They certainly don’t care what you think. And yes, frankly, they don’t care
what a lot of people think.

> Great Popper didn't mention that he would care,
> so for sure he doesn't care.
> Or maybe you're a delusional idiot living in a delusional world...
>
>>> No, that's not.
>> So where does physics say which settings are correct and proper? Please
>> don’t say “proper time”. “Proper time” is a jargon term that has nothing to
>> do with how to set a clock.
>
> Odd, you're a true idiot. But, of course, there is nothing to worry
> about, "idiot" is a worthless jargon term without any scientific
> definition.
> Request refused, anyway. Proper time, ISO definition, hundreds
> of other occasions.

OK, so you thereby demonstrate that you do not know what “proper time”
means but you still complain about it, and so on.

And who is that going to reflect on except you?

>

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

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> A word before I sign off, about the crackpot skeptics that lurk here. I
> would probably be the first one to admit that my approach could be wrong.
> After all, it's my theory, and I am biased in favor of it. But, one thing
> for damnsure, the flaw won't be found by any of these bozos. To find an
> actual flaw you would have to understand my theory better than I do.

Ah, the familiar out of the whack job seeking attention: “You are not
qualified to judge my theory, because you do not understand it more than I
do.” And who, then, WOULD be qualified to judge your theory? No one? No one
at all? I see…. So it is immune from critique by this little picket fence.

> And they are so steeped in dogma, they just want to kill the heresy.
> Watch. Within minutes of the post time of this message they'll be
> swarming like flies with their insults and circular logic.
>

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

On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 14:05:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Sure, Bod, only with clocks aimed to count/measure time.
> > I.e. - only with all of them.
> Any engineer that cannot figure out that different applications will
> require different settings should have his license revoked.

Sure; unfortunately, your idiot gurus are no engineers
and have no license to revoke. At least you seem
understand, that your idiocy can only be applied
for "confirming" your religious mumble and
brainwash school children.

> >
> > Set a clock
> >> differently so that it no longer has the appellation “standard”
> >
> > And no longer the appelation "correct",
> Nope, just “standard”.

Also correct, proper etc. Do you want a note the next time poor
idiot Tom Roberts will mumble about broken clocks of GPS?

> > Sure, sure, why would he care whether his moronic mumble
> > is bought or not?
> They certainly don’t care what you think. And yes, frankly, they don’t care
> what a lot of people think.

Sure, sure, why would they care whether their moronic mumble
is bought or not?
Great Popper didn't mention that they would care,
so for sure they don't care.
Or maybe you're a delusional idiot living in a delusional world...

> > Request refused, anyway. Proper time, ISO definition, hundreds
> > of other occasions.
> OK, so you thereby demonstrate that you do not know what “proper time”
> means

For sure the idiot calling it this way took 6 random letters,
and they completely accidentally created the word "proper".
Without any relationship to its ordinary meaning!!! nonononono!!!!
Right, poor halfbrain?

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 14:05:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Sure, Bod, only with clocks aimed to count/measure time.
>>> I.e. - only with all of them.
>> Any engineer that cannot figure out that different applications will
>> require different settings should have his license revoked.
>
> Sure; unfortunately, your idiot gurus are no engineers
> and have no license to revoke. At least you seem
> understand, that your idiocy can only be applied
> for "confirming" your religious mumble and
> brainwash school children.

No, there are other applications as well. It’s not black and white, though.
Not just “for physics only” or “for everything”. I’m shocked — SHOCKED, I
tell you! — that an engineer cannot find his way to use cases in between
the two extremes.

>
>>>
>>> Set a clock
>>>> differently so that it no longer has the appellation “standard”
>>>
>>> And no longer the appelation "correct",
>> Nope, just “standard”.
>
> Also correct, proper etc.

Nope, just “standard”. Already cleared this up for you. You still confused
about the difference between standard and correct and proper?

> Do you want a note the next time poor
> idiot Tom Roberts will mumble about broken clocks of GPS?

I don’t speak for Tom Roberts.

>
>
>>> Sure, sure, why would he care whether his moronic mumble
>>> is bought or not?
>> They certainly don’t care what you think. And yes, frankly, they don’t care
>> what a lot of people think.
>
> Sure, sure, why would they care whether their moronic mumble
> is bought or not?

They don’t.

> Great Popper didn't mention that they would care,
> so for sure they don't care.
> Or maybe you're a delusional idiot living in a delusional world...
>
>
>>> Request refused, anyway. Proper time, ISO definition, hundreds
>>> of other occasions.
>> OK, so you thereby demonstrate that you do not know what “proper time”
>> means
>
> For sure the idiot calling it this way took 6 random letters,
> and they completely accidentally created the word "proper".

It’s a jargon word. It has special meaning in physics. Just like “cell”
means completely different things in biology and information security.

> Without any relationship to its ordinary meaning!!! nonononono!!!!

That’s right. No relationship. It’s a pity jargon throws you for such a
loop.

> Right, poor halfbrain?
>
>

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

On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 15:20:49 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 14:05:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>> Sure, Bod, only with clocks aimed to count/measure time.
> >>> I.e. - only with all of them.
> >> Any engineer that cannot figure out that different applications will
> >> require different settings should have his license revoked.
> >
> > Sure; unfortunately, your idiot gurus are no engineers
> > and have no license to revoke. At least you seem
> > understand, that your idiocy can only be applied
> > for "confirming" your religious mumble and
> > brainwash school children.
> No, there are other applications as well.

Let me guess... cooking eggs? For sure, however,
they don't include precise measurement. Anyone
can check GPS.

> >>> And no longer the appelation "correct",
> >> Nope, just “standard”.
> >
> > Also correct, proper etc.
> Nope, just “standard”. Already cleared this up for you. You still confused
> about the difference between standard and correct and proper?

Yes, also correct, proper etc. Already cleared this up for you.
Do you want a note the next time poor idiot Tom Roberts will
mumble about broken clocks of GPS?

> >>> Sure, sure, why would he care whether his moronic mumble
> >>> is bought or not?
> >> They certainly don’t care what you think. And yes, frankly, they don’t care
> >> what a lot of people think.
> >
> > Sure, sure, why would they care whether their moronic mumble
> > is bought or not?
> They don’t.

Poor idiot woodworker is asserting, must be true. Obviously,
relativistic gurus are superhuman demigods, free of the
weaknesses of ordinary mortal worms.
BTW, are you speaking for Tom Roberts too right now?

> > Great Popper didn't mention that they would care,
> > so for sure they don't care.
> > Or maybe you're a delusional idiot living in a delusional world...
> >
> >
> >>> Request refused, anyway. Proper time, ISO definition, hundreds
> >>> of other occasions.
> >> OK, so you thereby demonstrate that you do not know what “proper time”
> >> means
> >
> > For sure the idiot calling it this way took 6 random letters,
> > and they completely accidentally created the word "proper".
> It’s a jargon word. It has special meaning in physics. Just like “cell”

For sure the idiot calling it this way took 6 random letters,
and they completely accidentally created the word "proper".
Without any relationship to its ordinary meaning!!! nonononono!!!!
Poor idiot woodworker is asserting, must be true.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 15:20:49 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 14:05:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Sure, Bod, only with clocks aimed to count/measure time.
>>>>> I.e. - only with all of them.
>>>> Any engineer that cannot figure out that different applications will
>>>> require different settings should have his license revoked.
>>>
>>> Sure; unfortunately, your idiot gurus are no engineers
>>> and have no license to revoke. At least you seem
>>> understand, that your idiocy can only be applied
>>> for "confirming" your religious mumble and
>>> brainwash school children.
>> No, there are other applications as well.
>
> Let me guess... cooking eggs?

If you have to guess, you’re a crappy engineer.

> For sure, however,
> they don't include precise measurement. Anyone
> can check GPS.
>
>>>>> And no longer the appelation "correct",
>>>> Nope, just “standard”.
>>>
>>> Also correct, proper etc.
>> Nope, just “standard”. Already cleared this up for you. You still confused
>> about the difference between standard and correct and proper?
>
> Yes, also correct, proper etc. Already cleared this up for you.

Apparently not. Apparently you are ineducable. But feel free to stand your
ground on Mount Stupid.

> Do you want a note the next time poor idiot Tom Roberts will
> mumble about broken clocks of GPS?
>
>
>>>>> Sure, sure, why would he care whether his moronic mumble
>>>>> is bought or not?
>>>> They certainly don’t care what you think. And yes, frankly, they don’t care
>>>> what a lot of people think.
>>>
>>> Sure, sure, why would they care whether their moronic mumble
>>> is bought or not?
>> They don’t.
>
> Poor idiot woodworker is asserting, must be true.

It’s what they say. You are free of course to suspect them of lying and
secretly caring what you think.

> Obviously,
> relativistic gurus are superhuman demigods, free of the
> weaknesses of ordinary mortal worms.

It doesn’t take superhuman demigods to not care whether you buy it or not.

> BTW, are you speaking for Tom Roberts too right now?
>
>>> Great Popper didn't mention that they would care,
>>> so for sure they don't care.
>>> Or maybe you're a delusional idiot living in a delusional world...
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Request refused, anyway. Proper time, ISO definition, hundreds
>>>>> of other occasions.
>>>> OK, so you thereby demonstrate that you do not know what “proper time”
>>>> means
>>>
>>> For sure the idiot calling it this way took 6 random letters,
>>> and they completely accidentally created the word "proper".
>> It’s a jargon word. It has special meaning in physics. Just like “cell”
>
> For sure the idiot calling it this way took 6 random letters,
> and they completely accidentally created the word "proper".
> Without any relationship to its ordinary meaning!!! nonononono!!!!
> Poor idiot woodworker is asserting, must be true.

Well, since you’ve entered your little echolalia seizure, there’s not much
to add except to wait for your seizure to pass and for you to wipe the foam
off your lips.

>
>

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

On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 15:54:33 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 15:20:49 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 14:05:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Sure, Bod, only with clocks aimed to count/measure time.
> >>>>> I.e. - only with all of them.
> >>>> Any engineer that cannot figure out that different applications will
> >>>> require different settings should have his license revoked.
> >>>
> >>> Sure; unfortunately, your idiot gurus are no engineers
> >>> and have no license to revoke. At least you seem
> >>> understand, that your idiocy can only be applied
> >>> for "confirming" your religious mumble and
> >>> brainwash school children.
> >> No, there are other applications as well.
> >
> > Let me guess... cooking eggs?
> If you have to guess, you’re a crappy engineer.

You, on the other hand, are no engineer. So, what are
your "other applications as well"? For sure, however,
they don't include precise measurement. Anyone
can check GPS.

> >
> >>>>> And no longer the appelation "correct",
> >>>> Nope, just “standard”.
> >>>
> >>> Also correct, proper etc.
> >> Nope, just “standard”. Already cleared this up for you.. You still confused
> >> about the difference between standard and correct and proper?
> >
> > Yes, also correct, proper etc. Already cleared this up for you.
> Apparently not. Apparently you are ineducable. But feel free to stand your
> ground on Mount Stupid.

Apparently yes. Apparently you are ineducable. But feel free to stand your
ground on Mount Stupid.

> > Do you want a note the next time poor idiot Tom Roberts will
> > mumble about broken clocks of GPS?
> >
> >
> >>>>> Sure, sure, why would he care whether his moronic mumble
> >>>>> is bought or not?
> >>>> They certainly don’t care what you think. And yes, frankly, they don’t care
> >>>> what a lot of people think.
> >>>
> >>> Sure, sure, why would they care whether their moronic mumble
> >>> is bought or not?
> >> They don’t.
> >
> > Poor idiot woodworker is asserting, must be true.
> It’s what they say.

They say they don't care whether a lot of people listen to
them or not?
So, are you or aren't you speaking for Tom Roberts too
this time?

> >
> >>> Great Popper didn't mention that they would care,
> >>> so for sure they don't care.
> >>> Or maybe you're a delusional idiot living in a delusional world...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Request refused, anyway. Proper time, ISO definition, hundreds
> >>>>> of other occasions.
> >>>> OK, so you thereby demonstrate that you do not know what “proper time”
> >>>> means
> >>>
> >>> For sure the idiot calling it this way took 6 random letters,
> >>> and they completely accidentally created the word "proper".
> >> It’s a jargon word. It has special meaning in physics. Just like “cell”
> >
> > For sure the idiot calling it this way took 6 random letters,
> > and they completely accidentally created the word "proper".
> > Without any relationship to its ordinary meaning!!! nonononono!!!!
> > Poor idiot woodworker is asserting, must be true.
> Well, since you’ve entered your little echolalia seizure, there’s not much
> to add

Being an idiot you generally have very little to add to your
completely idiotic assertions, Bod.