What is the unit of time your idiot guru was
reffering to in his 1905 paper? How was it
defined?

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> What is the unit of time your idiot guru was
> reffering to in his 1905 paper? How was it
> defined?

The units where free to be chosen by the reader.
You can use seconds (s) if you want. or minutes, or hours, or LY, etc.
You are free to use any name or any symbols you want for the units of time.

The unit's chosen are independent of the theory, Independent of the equations.

Note that You asked how the 'units' were Define. You did not ask how 'time' was defined.

rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>> What is the unit of time your idiot guru was
>> reffering to in his 1905 paper? How was it
>> defined?
>
> The units where free to be chosen by the reader.
> You can use seconds (s) if you want. or minutes, or hours, or LY, etc.
> You are free to use any name or any symbols you want for the units of time.
>
> The unit's chosen are independent of the theory, Independent of the equations.
>
> Note that You asked how the 'units' were Define. You did not ask how 'time' was defined.
>

Exactly. Only an idiot would insist that the international standard for a
unit must remain fixed, lest some law written down in the 1600s might be
thought of as breaking unless the same units are used as they were back
then.

But then again, Woz’s fork is missing a couple of tines, isn’t it?

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

On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 17:29:28 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > What is the unit of time your idiot guru was
> > reffering to in his 1905 paper? How was it
> > defined?
> The units where free to be chosen by the reader.

Oh, really? So I'm choosing the default second of 1905,
defined as 1/86400 of a day. Samely as every thinking
man in 1905 should.
Now we have: Earth twins counts 1000 Earth turnarounds,
86400000 time units. His twin brother, of course, sees
only 80% of that. Right?

On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 17:37:48 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> What is the unit of time your idiot guru was
> >> reffering to in his 1905 paper? How was it
> >> defined?
> >
> > The units where free to be chosen by the reader.
> > You can use seconds (s) if you want. or minutes, or hours, or LY, etc.
> > You are free to use any name or any symbols you want for the units of time.
> >
> > The unit's chosen are independent of the theory, Independent of the equations.
> >
> > Note that You asked how the 'units' were Define. You did not ask how 'time' was defined.
> >
> Exactly. Only an idiot would insist that the international standard for a
> unit must remain fixed

Like Tom does?

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 17:37:48 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> What is the unit of time your idiot guru was
>>>> reffering to in his 1905 paper? How was it
>>>> defined?
>>>
>>> The units where free to be chosen by the reader.
>>> You can use seconds (s) if you want. or minutes, or hours, or LY, etc.
>>> You are free to use any name or any symbols you want for the units of time.
>>>
>>> The unit's chosen are independent of the theory, Independent of the equations.
>>>
>>> Note that You asked how the 'units' were Define. You did not ask how 'time' was defined.
>>>
>> Exactly. Only an idiot would insist that the international standard for a
>> unit must remain fixed
>
> Like Tom does?
>

I have no evidence that he does that. As far as I know, he uses whatever
the international standards board uses for unit definition — which does not
remain fixed.

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

On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 18:18:38 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 17:37:48 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> What is the unit of time your idiot guru was
> >>>> reffering to in his 1905 paper? How was it
> >>>> defined?
> >>>
> >>> The units where free to be chosen by the reader.
> >>> You can use seconds (s) if you want. or minutes, or hours, or LY, etc.
> >>> You are free to use any name or any symbols you want for the units of time.
> >>>
> >>> The unit's chosen are independent of the theory, Independent of the equations.
> >>>
> >>> Note that You asked how the 'units' were Define. You did not ask how 'time' was defined.
> >>>
> >> Exactly. Only an idiot would insist that the international standard for a
> >> unit must remain fixed
> >
> > Like Tom does?
> >
> I have no evidence that he does that.

Did you never notice how often the number 9 192 631 770 is invoked
on this newsgroup?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> What is the unit of time your idiot guru was reffering to in his 1905
> paper? How was it defined?

lech valensa kiss my ass.

On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 18:38:05 UTC+1, Nike Cook wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> > What is the unit of time your idiot guru was reffering to in his 1905
> > paper? How was it defined?
> lech valensa kiss my ass.

He's Lech Walesa.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 18:18:38 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 17:37:48 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> What is the unit of time your idiot guru was
>>>>>> reffering to in his 1905 paper? How was it
>>>>>> defined?
>>>>>
>>>>> The units where free to be chosen by the reader.
>>>>> You can use seconds (s) if you want. or minutes, or hours, or LY, etc.
>>>>> You are free to use any name or any symbols you want for the units of time.
>>>>>
>>>>> The unit's chosen are independent of the theory, Independent of the equations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that You asked how the 'units' were Define. You did not ask how
>>>>> 'time' was defined.
>>>>>
>>>> Exactly. Only an idiot would insist that the international standard for a
>>>> unit must remain fixed
>>>
>>> Like Tom does?
>>>
>> I have no evidence that he does that.
>
> Did you never notice how often the number 9 192 631 770 is invoked
> on this newsgroup?
>
>

Of course. That’s been the standard since 1987. Prior to that, the standard
had been redefined in 1956. Before that, it was changed in 1940. Before
that, 1874. See? Not fixed. It changes with time.

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

On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 18:55:25 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 18:18:38 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 17:37:48 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> What is the unit of time your idiot guru was
> >>>>>> reffering to in his 1905 paper? How was it
> >>>>>> defined?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The units where free to be chosen by the reader.
> >>>>> You can use seconds (s) if you want. or minutes, or hours, or LY, etc.
> >>>>> You are free to use any name or any symbols you want for the units of time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The unit's chosen are independent of the theory, Independent of the equations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note that You asked how the 'units' were Define. You did not ask how
> >>>>> 'time' was defined.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Exactly. Only an idiot would insist that the international standard for a
> >>>> unit must remain fixed
> >>>
> >>> Like Tom does?
> >>>
> >> I have no evidence that he does that.
> >
> > Did you never notice how often the number 9 192 631 770 is invoked
> > on this newsgroup?
> >
> >
> Of course. That’s been the standard since 1987. Prior to that, the standard
> had been redefined in 1956. Before that, it was changed in 1940. Before
> that, 1874. See? Not fixed. It changes with time.

But, unfortunately, your Shit only matches the measurement
results under one of them. And that's why your more knowledgeable
fellow idiots insist on it very much.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 18:55:25 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 18:18:38 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 17:37:48 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> What is the unit of time your idiot guru was
>>>>>>>> reffering to in his 1905 paper? How was it
>>>>>>>> defined?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The units where free to be chosen by the reader.
>>>>>>> You can use seconds (s) if you want. or minutes, or hours, or LY, etc.
>>>>>>> You are free to use any name or any symbols you want for the units of time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The unit's chosen are independent of the theory, Independent of the equations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that You asked how the 'units' were Define. You did not ask how
>>>>>>> 'time' was defined.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly. Only an idiot would insist that the international standard for a
>>>>>> unit must remain fixed
>>>>>
>>>>> Like Tom does?
>>>>>
>>>> I have no evidence that he does that.
>>>
>>> Did you never notice how often the number 9 192 631 770 is invoked
>>> on this newsgroup?
>>>
>>>
>> Of course. That’s been the standard since 1987. Prior to that, the standard
>> had been redefined in 1956. Before that, it was changed in 1940. Before
>> that, 1874. See? Not fixed. It changes with time.
>
> But, unfortunately, your Shit only matches the measurement
> results under one of them. And that's why your more knowledgeable
> fellow idiots insist on it very much.
>
>

Well, THAT’S not true, of course. But foam away with silly statements if it
makes you happy.

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

On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 20:28:54 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 18:55:25 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 18:18:38 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 17:37:48 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> What is the unit of time your idiot guru was
> >>>>>>>> reffering to in his 1905 paper? How was it
> >>>>>>>> defined?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The units where free to be chosen by the reader.
> >>>>>>> You can use seconds (s) if you want. or minutes, or hours, or LY, etc.
> >>>>>>> You are free to use any name or any symbols you want for the units of time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The unit's chosen are independent of the theory, Independent of the equations.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Note that You asked how the 'units' were Define. You did not ask how
> >>>>>>> 'time' was defined.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Exactly. Only an idiot would insist that the international standard for a
> >>>>>> unit must remain fixed
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Like Tom does?
> >>>>>
> >>>> I have no evidence that he does that.
> >>>
> >>> Did you never notice how often the number 9 192 631 770 is invoked
> >>> on this newsgroup?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Of course. That’s been the standard since 1987. Prior to that, the standard
> >> had been redefined in 1956. Before that, it was changed in 1940. Before
> >> that, 1874. See? Not fixed. It changes with time.
> >
> > But, unfortunately, your Shit only matches the measurement
> > results under one of them. And that's why your more knowledgeable
> > fellow idiots insist on it very much.
> >
> >
> Well, THAT’S not true, of course.

Well, yes, THAT is. Of course.

> But foam away with silly statements if it
> makes you happy.

The facts won't go away because of your spitting on
them; sorry, poor stinker.

On 1/6/2022 12:11 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 17:29:28 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> What is the unit of time your idiot guru was
>>> reffering to in his 1905 paper? How was it
>>> defined?
>> The units where free to be chosen by the reader.
>
> Oh, really? So I'm choosing the default second of 1905,
> defined as 1/86400 of a day. Samely as every thinking
> man in 1905 should.
> Now we have: Earth twins counts 1000 Earth turnarounds,
> 86400000 time units. His twin brother, of course, sees
> only 80% of that. Right?

The twin brother, moving at a significant fraction of c, is going to see
the earth turning at a rate rather different from 86400 time units per
rotation. If you disagree, go argue with a certain Mr. Doppler.
>

On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 20:56:02 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 1/6/2022 12:11 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 17:29:28 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> >> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> What is the unit of time your idiot guru was
> >>> reffering to in his 1905 paper? How was it
> >>> defined?
> >> The units where free to be chosen by the reader.
> >
> > Oh, really? So I'm choosing the default second of 1905,
> > defined as 1/86400 of a day. Samely as every thinking
> > man in 1905 should.
> > Now we have: Earth twins counts 1000 Earth turnarounds,
> > 86400000 time units. His twin brother, of course, sees
> > only 80% of that. Right?
> The twin brother, moving at a significant fraction of c, is going to see
> the earth turning at a rate rather different from 86400 time units per
> rotation. If you disagree, go argue with a certain Mr. Doppler.

I wonder why do you never oppose the same way to
your idiot gurus jabbering of what these twins will see.

On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 18:11:56 UTC+1, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 17:29:28 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > What is the unit of time your idiot guru was
> > > reffering to in his 1905 paper? How was it
> > > defined?
> > The units where free to be chosen by the reader.
> Oh, really? So I'm choosing the default second of 1905,
> defined as 1/86400 of a day. Samely as every thinking
> man in 1905 should.
> Now we have: Earth twins counts 1000 Earth turnarounds,
> 86400000 time units. His twin brother, of course, sees
> only 80% of that. Right?

Still no answers?
So you admit that you have been cornered and that you have no more rebuttals.
Your silence just shows how much you are of a coward because you can't admit that you were wrong.
A typical reaction of a crank.

On 1/6/2022 3:01 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 20:56:02 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 1/6/2022 12:11 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 17:29:28 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> What is the unit of time your idiot guru was
>>>>> reffering to in his 1905 paper? How was it
>>>>> defined?
>>>> The units where free to be chosen by the reader.
>>>
>>> Oh, really? So I'm choosing the default second of 1905,
>>> defined as 1/86400 of a day. Samely as every thinking
>>> man in 1905 should.
>>> Now we have: Earth twins counts 1000 Earth turnarounds,
>>> 86400000 time units. His twin brother, of course, sees
>>> only 80% of that. Right?
>> The twin brother, moving at a significant fraction of c, is going to see
>> the earth turning at a rate rather different from 86400 time units per
>> rotation. If you disagree, go argue with a certain Mr. Doppler.
>
> I wonder why do you never oppose the same way to
> your idiot gurus jabbering of what these twins will see.

I don't have a guru, idiot or otherwise.

I oppose posts and claims which are wrong. Or sometimes just laugh at
them. Like the incredibly stupid claim that the GPS system "proves" t'=t
when it does the exact opposite.

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 1:06:07 PM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> What is the unit of time your idiot guru was
> reffering to in his 1905 paper? How was it
> defined?

It doesn't matter. It only has to tick slower close to ponderable masses, only exigence from Einstein.

On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 23:26:43 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 1/6/2022 3:01 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 20:56:02 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 1/6/2022 12:11 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 17:29:28 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> What is the unit of time your idiot guru was
> >>>>> reffering to in his 1905 paper? How was it
> >>>>> defined?
> >>>> The units where free to be chosen by the reader.
> >>>
> >>> Oh, really? So I'm choosing the default second of 1905,
> >>> defined as 1/86400 of a day. Samely as every thinking
> >>> man in 1905 should.
> >>> Now we have: Earth twins counts 1000 Earth turnarounds,
> >>> 86400000 time units. His twin brother, of course, sees
> >>> only 80% of that. Right?
> >> The twin brother, moving at a significant fraction of c, is going to see
> >> the earth turning at a rate rather different from 86400 time units per
> >> rotation. If you disagree, go argue with a certain Mr. Doppler.
> >
> > I wonder why do you never oppose the same way to
> > your idiot gurus jabbering of what these twins will see.
> I don't have a guru, idiot or otherwise.
> I oppose posts and claims which are wrong. Or sometimes just laugh at
> them. Like the incredibly stupid claim that the GPS system "proves" t'=t
> when it does the exact opposite.

So why do you never oppose the same way to
idiot physicists jabbering of what these twins will see?

On 1/7/2022 1:07 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 23:26:43 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 1/6/2022 3:01 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>>> I wonder why do you never oppose the same way to
>>> your idiot gurus jabbering of what these twins will see.
>> I don't have a guru, idiot or otherwise.
>> I oppose posts and claims which are wrong. Or sometimes just laugh at
>> them. Like the incredibly stupid claim that the GPS system "proves" t'=t
>> when it does the exact opposite.
>
> So why do you never oppose the same way to
> idiot physicists jabbering of what these twins will see?
>
Only so many hours in a spinning space rock... I cannot post a response
to every single crackpot who posts something stupid. Heck, just keeping
up with your foolishness is equivalent to a full time job.