Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 16:33:33 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 14:59:02 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 12:38:49 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/
> > > > > > > Now let's look at the definition of time valid in your moronic
> > > > > > > physics. "Time is what clocks indicate". Looks like GPS time
> > > > > > > fulfill it?
> > > > > > > What do you think, poor halfbrains?
> > > > > > Of course, dear half-brain.
> > > > > > GPS time is what the master clock at USNO says it is.
> > > > > > It is locked to TAI btw,
> > > > > > (with minor differences that average out)
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, so it is a time. Fine. So, next question is: do its
> > > > > properties correspond to the properties of time
> > > > > discovered, or predicted, or invented, by your idiot
> > > > > guru and described in his famous article?
> > > > Nonsense question. Time just is what it is.
> > >
> > > I.e.?
> > >
> > > > GPS time is ticks on the GPS clock.
> > >
> > > Surely it is. So, once again - is it or isn't it a time?
> > See above,
>
> " Of course"?
>
> So, again: do real properties of GPS time match
> those gedanken idiocies written by your idiot guru
> about the properties of a time?

There is nothing to match.
The time, and the clock, are what they are.
You really need to think up a better question,

Jan

On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 18:52:29 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 1/26/2022 4:23 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 10:08:53 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 1/26/2022 2:04 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 01:20:43 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> No.
> >>>
> >>> It isn't a time, right., stupid Mike? So, GPS documentation,
> >>> saying it is, is a pile of bullshit, right, stupid Mike?
> >>>
> >> The GPS system is a clock, drunk janitor.
> >
> > No, stupid Mike, GPS system is not a clock, it is GPS
> > system.
> Nobody is going to claim that the GPS system is only a clock

I can easily believe you were not going to; but you
still did, stupid Mike.

> > And GPS time, as described in link - well, you
> > may wave your arms and insist it's not any time; it's
> > as worthless as your insisting that [all] the borders of
> > Colorado are straight lines; for sane people it is a
> > time.
> Time has a specific definition in physics; look it up.
>
> "GPS time" is what the GPS clock shows.

And it happens to be this specific definition
ypu've mentioned; look it up.

On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 19:06:31 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 16:33:33 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 14:59:02 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 12:38:49 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/
> > > > > > > > Now let's look at the definition of time valid in your moronic
> > > > > > > > physics. "Time is what clocks indicate". Looks like GPS time
> > > > > > > > fulfill it?
> > > > > > > > What do you think, poor halfbrains?
> > > > > > > Of course, dear half-brain.
> > > > > > > GPS time is what the master clock at USNO says it is.
> > > > > > > It is locked to TAI btw,
> > > > > > > (with minor differences that average out)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, so it is a time. Fine. So, next question is: do its
> > > > > > properties correspond to the properties of time
> > > > > > discovered, or predicted, or invented, by your idiot
> > > > > > guru and described in his famous article?
> > > > > Nonsense question. Time just is what it is.
> > > >
> > > > I.e.?
> > > >
> > > > > GPS time is ticks on the GPS clock.
> > > >
> > > > Surely it is. So, once again - is it or isn't it a time?
> > > See above,
> >
> > " Of course"?
> >
> > So, again: do real properties of GPS time match
> > those gedanken idiocies written by your idiot guru
> > about the properties of a time?
> There is nothing to match.
> The time, and the clock, are what they are.

Are they also what your idiot guru has mumbled
they will be, poor halfbrain? Well, "there's nothing to
match". Exactly.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:

> On 1/26/2022 6:38 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/
> >> Now let's look at the definition of time valid in your moronic
> >> physics. "Time is what clocks indicate". Looks like GPS time
> >> fulfill it?
> >> What do you think, poor halfbrains?
> >
> > Of course, dear half-brain.
> > GPS time is what the master clock at USNO says it is.
> > It is locked to TAI btw,
> > (with minor differences that average out)
>
> Not quite. GPS time is TAI time with a fixed, never changing, 18 second
> difference. They tick in lockstep.

Yes, locked to TAI, just what I said,

Jan

On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 20:36:11 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>
> > On 1/26/2022 6:38 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/
> > >> Now let's look at the definition of time valid in your moronic
> > >> physics. "Time is what clocks indicate". Looks like GPS time
> > >> fulfill it?
> > >> What do you think, poor halfbrains?
> > >
> > > Of course, dear half-brain.
> > > GPS time is what the master clock at USNO says it is.
> > > It is locked to TAI btw,
> > > (with minor differences that average out)
> >
> > Not quite. GPS time is TAI time with a fixed, never changing, 18 second
> > difference. They tick in lockstep.
> Yes, locked to TAI, just what I said,

How is it going to dilate then, poor halfbrain? Or is it not,
maybe?

On 1/26/2022 2:39 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 20:36:11 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/26/2022 6:38 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

>>>> Of course, dear half-brain.
>>>> GPS time is what the master clock at USNO says it is.
>>>> It is locked to TAI btw,
>>>> (with minor differences that average out)
>>>
>>> Not quite. GPS time is TAI time with a fixed, never changing, 18 second
>>> difference. They tick in lockstep.
>> Yes, locked to TAI, just what I said,

I was just commenting on the "minor differences which average out". If
you meant a reading where ionosphere, satellite orbit fluctuations
introducing tiny errors on a GPS reading, OK. If you mean the actual
definition, what a GPS device should read, that is fixed at 18 seconds
offset from TAI which never changes.
>
> How is it going to dilate then, poor halfbrain? Or is it not,
> maybe?

Do you know the difference between a clock reading and actual time?

Besides, TAI/GPS time is defined for something moving at low speed on or
near the geoid.

On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 21:30:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:

> > How is it going to dilate then, poor halfbrain? Or is it not,
> > maybe?
> Do you know the difference between a clock reading and actual time?

Well, according to the holy scripts of your idiot guru
there is no difference, stupid Mike, and I tend to agree
with them at this point.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 21:30:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>> How is it going to dilate then, poor halfbrain? Or is it not,
>>> maybe?
>> Do you know the difference between a clock reading and actual time?
>
> Well, according to the holy scripts of your idiot guru
> there is no difference, stupid Mike, and I tend to agree
> with them at this point.

It's quite funny that you pretend to agree with something Einstein
never claimed ("Everything I call a clock is clock").

"in which the Newtonian equations hold"
"in which the Newtonian equations hold"
"in which the Newtonian equations hold"
"in which the Newtonian equations hold"
"in which the Newtonian equations hold"

"the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
"the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
"the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
"the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
"the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"

On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 22:45:36 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 21:30:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> >>> How is it going to dilate then, poor halfbrain? Or is it not,
> >>> maybe?
> >> Do you know the difference between a clock reading and actual time?
> >
> > Well, according to the holy scripts of your idiot guru
> > there is no difference, stupid Mike, and I tend to agree
> > with them at this point.
> It's quite funny that you pretend to agree with something Einstein
> never claimed ("Everything I call a clock is clock").
>
> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>
> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"

"It might seem that all difficulties involved in the definition of "time"
could be overcome by my substituting "position of the small hand
of my clock" for "time." Such a definition is indeed sufficient if
time has to be defined exclusively for the place at which the
clock is located; "
"It might seem that all difficulties involved in the definition of "time"
could be overcome by my substituting "position of the small hand
of my clock" for "time." Such a definition is indeed sufficient if
time has to be defined exclusively for the place at which the
clock is located; "
"It might seem that all difficulties involved in the definition of "time"
could be overcome by my substituting "position of the small hand
of my clock" for "time." Such a definition is indeed sufficient if
time has to be defined exclusively for the place at which the
clock is located; "
"It might seem that all difficulties involved in the definition of "time"
could be overcome by my substituting "position of the small hand
of my clock" for "time." Such a definition is indeed sufficient if
time has to be defined exclusively for the place at which the
clock is located; "
"It might seem that all difficulties involved in the definition of "time"
could be overcome by my substituting "position of the small hand
of my clock" for "time." Such a definition is indeed sufficient if
time has to be defined exclusively for the place at which the
clock is located; "

Python wrote:

> It's quite funny that you pretend to agree with something Einstein never
> claimed ("Everything I call a clock is clock").
>
> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"

they don't, there are no exact, tolerance free clocks.

Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 22:45:36 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 21:30:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>>>> How is it going to dilate then, poor halfbrain? Or is it not,
>>>>> maybe?
>>>> Do you know the difference between a clock reading and actual time?
>>>
>>> Well, according to the holy scripts of your idiot guru
>>> there is no difference, stupid Mike, and I tend to agree
>>> with them at this point.
>> It's quite funny that you pretend to agree with something Einstein
>> never claimed ("Everything I call a clock is clock").
>>
>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>>
>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
>
> "It might seem that all difficulties involved in the definition of "time"
> could be overcome by my substituting "position of the small hand
> of my clock" for "time." Such a definition is indeed sufficient if
> time has to be defined exclusively for the place at which the
> clock is located; "

Nothing there claims, as you do, and pretend that Einstein did, that
"everything I call a clock is a clock". What a "stinker" you are.

As a matter of FACT, clocks involved in defining time coordinates
at a given position are *in the very same section* (how come you
can be soooo stuuuupid, Maciej) postulated to insure that
"in [the frame] the Newtonian equations hold" AND all these
clocks are "exactly of the same nature as the ones" at other
position.

Did you check about brain damage, Maciej? I'm pretty sure you should.

Nym-shifting troll, aka Hanoi Kram wrote:
> Python wrote:
>
>> It's quite funny that you pretend to agree with something Einstein never
>> claimed ("Everything I call a clock is clock").
>>
>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>
> they don't, there are no exact, tolerance free clocks.

> User-Agent: Noworyta/3.1 (iPhone)
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2

No tolerance for (mostly) not funny idiotic nym-shifting
troll.

You've been funny ONCE in 20 years, idiot.

Python wrote:

>>> It's quite funny that you pretend to agree with something Einstein
>>> never claimed ("Everything I call a clock is clock").
>>>
>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>>
>> they don't, there are no exact, tolerance free clocks.
>
> No tolerance for (mostly) not funny idiotic nym-shifting troll.

i only said you are an imbecile, whereas the newtone equations won't
hold. Can't you fucking read the datasheet.

On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 23:01:48 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 22:45:36 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 21:30:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> How is it going to dilate then, poor halfbrain? Or is it not,
> >>>>> maybe?
> >>>> Do you know the difference between a clock reading and actual time?
> >>>
> >>> Well, according to the holy scripts of your idiot guru
> >>> there is no difference, stupid Mike, and I tend to agree
> >>> with them at this point.
> >> It's quite funny that you pretend to agree with something Einstein
> >> never claimed ("Everything I call a clock is clock").
> >>
> >> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> >> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> >> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> >> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> >> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> >>
> >> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
> >> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
> >> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
> >> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
> >> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
> >
> > "It might seem that all difficulties involved in the definition of "time"
> > could be overcome by my substituting "position of the small hand
> > of my clock" for "time." Such a definition is indeed sufficient if
> > time has to be defined exclusively for the place at which the
> > clock is located; "
> Nothing there claims, as you do, and pretend that Einstein did, that
> "everything I call a clock is a clock".

Well, in opposition to you I know what a clock is, and
you can check in the GPS documentation that professionals
agree with me, not with you, poor stinker.

> As a matter of FACT, clocks involved in defining time coordinates
> at a given position are *in the very same section* (how come you
> can be soooo stuuuupid, Maciej) postulated to insure that
> "in [the frame] the Newtonian equations hold"

So, whatever isn't in a frame where they don't hold according
to you can't be a clock, do I understand you correctly, poor
stinker?

> clocks are "exactly of the same nature as the ones" at other
> position.

Python, poor stinker, if someone defines a triangle and
then writes Pythagorean theorem - will you conclude
that a triangle must be right?

Hanoi Kram <haka@cuvsa.cn> wrote:

> Python wrote:
>
> > It's quite funny that you pretend to agree with something Einstein never
> > claimed ("Everything I call a clock is clock").
> >
> > "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>
> they don't, there are no exact, tolerance free clocks.

No need to, motions can be observed exacly either.

Jan

"Poor stinker", Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 23:01:48 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 22:45:36 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 21:30:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> How is it going to dilate then, poor halfbrain? Or is it not,
>>>>>>> maybe?
>>>>>> Do you know the difference between a clock reading and actual time?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, according to the holy scripts of your idiot guru
>>>>> there is no difference, stupid Mike, and I tend to agree
>>>>> with them at this point.
>>>> It's quite funny that you pretend to agree with something Einstein
>>>> never claimed ("Everything I call a clock is clock").
>>>>
>>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>>>>
>>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
>>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
>>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
>>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
>>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
>>>
>>> "It might seem that all difficulties involved in the definition of "time"
>>> could be overcome by my substituting "position of the small hand
>>> of my clock" for "time." Such a definition is indeed sufficient if
>>> time has to be defined exclusively for the place at which the
>>> clock is located; "
>> Nothing there claims, as you do, and pretend that Einstein did, that
>> "everything I call a clock is a clock".
>
> Well, in opposition to you I know what a clock is, and
> you can check in the GPS documentation that professionals
> agree with me, not with you, [snip signature]

They don't. You lie.

>> As a matter of FACT, clocks involved in defining time coordinates
>> at a given position are *in the very same section* (how come you
>> can be soooo stuuuupid, Maciej) postulated to insure that
>> "in [the frame] the Newtonian equations hold"
>
> So, whatever isn't in a frame where they don't hold according
> to you can't be a clock, do I understand you correctly, [snip
> Maciej's signature]

You don't. I didn't use expressions like "is'nt [or is] in a frame".
Everything is in ALL frames. You as dumb than a stone.

>> clocks are "exactly of the same nature as the ones" at other
>> position.
>
> Python, [snip profanity], if someone defines a triangle and
> then writes Pythagorean theorem - will you conclude
> that a triangle must be right?

*Dumber* than a stone.

> --
> Poor stinker.

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Hanoi Kram <haka@cuvsa.cn> wrote:
>
>> Python wrote:
>>
>> > It's quite funny that you pretend to agree with something Einstein
>> > never claimed ("Everything I call a clock is clock").
>> >
>> > "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>>
>> they don't, there are no exact, tolerance free clocks.
>
> No need to, motions can be observed exacly either.

you don't read what is written, about clocks and continuity.

"Poor stinker", Maciej Wozniak wrote:
....
> Python, poor stinker, if someone defines a triangle and
> then writes Pythagorean theorem - will you conclude
> that a triangle must be right?

Poland, 1977 or 78.
Teacher: A whole number is even if it can be divided by two.
Teacher: Maciej, could you provide an example of an even number?
Maciej: Yes, 7!!! /Poor communist stinker/
Teacher: Are you sure, Maciej? Can 7 seven be divided by two?
Maciej: You did say that an even number can be divided by
two, you didn't say that a number not divisible by two cannot
be even.

"One of the greatest logician Humanity ever had." D.e.f.i.n.i.t.e.l.y

> --
> Poor stinker.

On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 23:32:10 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> "Poor stinker", Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 23:01:48 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 22:45:36 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 21:30:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> How is it going to dilate then, poor halfbrain? Or is it not,
> >>>>>>> maybe?
> >>>>>> Do you know the difference between a clock reading and actual time?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, according to the holy scripts of your idiot guru
> >>>>> there is no difference, stupid Mike, and I tend to agree
> >>>>> with them at this point.
> >>>> It's quite funny that you pretend to agree with something Einstein
> >>>> never claimed ("Everything I call a clock is clock").
> >>>>
> >>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> >>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> >>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> >>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> >>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> >>>>
> >>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
> >>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
> >>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
> >>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
> >>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
> >>>
> >>> "It might seem that all difficulties involved in the definition of "time"
> >>> could be overcome by my substituting "position of the small hand
> >>> of my clock" for "time." Such a definition is indeed sufficient if
> >>> time has to be defined exclusively for the place at which the
> >>> clock is located; "
> >> Nothing there claims, as you do, and pretend that Einstein did, that
> >> "everything I call a clock is a clock".
> >
> > Well, in opposition to you I know what a clock is, and
> > you can check in the GPS documentation that professionals
> > agree with me, not with you, [snip signature]
>
> They don't. You lie.

Yes, they do. These things I'm calling clocks they call
clocks as well. You lie, poor stinker, as expected from a
relativistic stinker.

> >> As a matter of FACT, clocks involved in defining time coordinates
> >> at a given position are *in the very same section* (how come you
> >> can be soooo stuuuupid, Maciej) postulated to insure that
> >> "in [the frame] the Newtonian equations hold"
> >
> > So, whatever isn't in a frame where they don't hold according
> > to you can't be a clock, do I understand you correctly, [snip
> > Maciej's signature]
>
> You don't. I didn't use expressions like "is'nt [or is] in a frame".

Well, you used "in the frame", right.

"Poor stinker", aka Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 23:32:10 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> "Poor stinker", Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 23:01:48 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 22:45:36 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 21:30:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How is it going to dilate then, poor halfbrain? Or is it not,
>>>>>>>>> maybe?
>>>>>>>> Do you know the difference between a clock reading and actual time?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, according to the holy scripts of your idiot guru
>>>>>>> there is no difference, stupid Mike, and I tend to agree
>>>>>>> with them at this point.
>>>>>> It's quite funny that you pretend to agree with something Einstein
>>>>>> never claimed ("Everything I call a clock is clock").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>>>>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>>>>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>>>>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>>>>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
>>>>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
>>>>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
>>>>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
>>>>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
>>>>>
>>>>> "It might seem that all difficulties involved in the definition of "time"
>>>>> could be overcome by my substituting "position of the small hand
>>>>> of my clock" for "time." Such a definition is indeed sufficient if
>>>>> time has to be defined exclusively for the place at which the
>>>>> clock is located; "
>>>> Nothing there claims, as you do, and pretend that Einstein did, that
>>>> "everything I call a clock is a clock".
>>>
>>> Well, in opposition to you I know what a clock is, and
>>> you can check in the GPS documentation that professionals
>>> agree with me, not with you, [snip signature]
>>
>> They don't. You lie.
>
> Yes, they do. These things I'm calling clocks they call
> clocks as well. You lie, poor stinker, as expected from a
> relativistic stinker.
>
>
>>>> As a matter of FACT, clocks involved in defining time coordinates
>>>> at a given position are *in the very same section* (how come you
>>>> can be soooo stuuuupid, Maciej) postulated to insure that
>>>> "in [the frame] the Newtonian equations hold"
>>>
>>> So, whatever isn't in a frame where they don't hold according
>>> to you can't be a clock, do I understand you correctly, [snip
>>> Maciej's signature]
>>
>> You don't. I didn't use expressions like "is'nt [or is] in a frame".
>
> Well, you used "in the frame", right.

Not for "a clock" or any other object, for equations.

*sigh*

On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 00:20:02 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> "Poor stinker", aka Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 23:32:10 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> "Poor stinker", Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 23:01:48 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 22:45:36 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 21:30:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> How is it going to dilate then, poor halfbrain? Or is it not,
> >>>>>>>>> maybe?
> >>>>>>>> Do you know the difference between a clock reading and actual time?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well, according to the holy scripts of your idiot guru
> >>>>>>> there is no difference, stupid Mike, and I tend to agree
> >>>>>>> with them at this point.
> >>>>>> It's quite funny that you pretend to agree with something Einstein
> >>>>>> never claimed ("Everything I call a clock is clock").
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> >>>>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> >>>>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> >>>>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> >>>>>> "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
> >>>>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
> >>>>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
> >>>>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
> >>>>>> "the clock is exactly of the same nature as the one at A"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "It might seem that all difficulties involved in the definition of "time"
> >>>>> could be overcome by my substituting "position of the small hand
> >>>>> of my clock" for "time." Such a definition is indeed sufficient if
> >>>>> time has to be defined exclusively for the place at which the
> >>>>> clock is located; "
> >>>> Nothing there claims, as you do, and pretend that Einstein did, that
> >>>> "everything I call a clock is a clock".
> >>>
> >>> Well, in opposition to you I know what a clock is, and
> >>> you can check in the GPS documentation that professionals
> >>> agree with me, not with you, [snip signature]
> >>
> >> They don't. You lie.
> >
> > Yes, they do. These things I'm calling clocks they call
> > clocks as well. You lie, poor stinker, as expected from a
> > relativistic stinker.
> >
> >
> >>>> As a matter of FACT, clocks involved in defining time coordinates
> >>>> at a given position are *in the very same section* (how come you
> >>>> can be soooo stuuuupid, Maciej) postulated to insure that
> >>>> "in [the frame] the Newtonian equations hold"
> >>>
> >>> So, whatever isn't in a frame where they don't hold according
> >>> to you can't be a clock, do I understand you correctly, [snip
> >>> Maciej's signature]
> >>
> >> You don't. I didn't use expressions like "is'nt [or is] in a frame".
> >
> > Well, you used "in the frame", right.
> Not for "a clock" or any other object, for equations.

Now read your idiot guru. You don't need any equations "if
> >>>>> time has to be defined exclusively for the place at which the
> >>>>> clock is located; " , poor stinker.

Hanoi Kram <haka@cuvsa.cn> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Hanoi Kram <haka@cuvsa.cn> wrote:
> >
> >> Python wrote:
> >>
> >> > It's quite funny that you pretend to agree with something Einstein
> >> > never claimed ("Everything I call a clock is clock").
> >> >
> >> > "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
> >>
> >> they don't, there are no exact, tolerance free clocks.
> >
> > No need to, motions can be observed exacly either.
>
> you don't read what is written, about clocks and continuity.

Actually read this forum?

You must be joking,

Jan

J. J. Lodder wrote:

>> >> > "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
>> >>
>> >> they don't, there are no exact, tolerance free clocks.
>> >
>> > No need to, motions can be observed exacly either.
>>
>> you don't read what is written, about clocks and continuity.
>
> Actually read this forum? You must be joking,

nevertheless, half of ukraine is polish territory. Why not.

J. J. Lodder wrote:

>> > It is locked to TAI btw,
>> > (with minor differences that average out)
>>
>> Not quite. GPS time is TAI time with a fixed, never changing, 18 second
>> difference. They tick in lockstep.
>
> Yes, locked to TAI, just what I said,

you don't know where TAI comes from. Since Volodymyr Zelensky is polish,
half of ukraine must be polish as well. I wonder whether you understand
tensors, which are not easy at all.

On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 11:41:53 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> > On 1/25/2022 4:45 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/
> >> Now let's look at the definition of time valid in your moronic
> >> physics. "Time is what clocks indicate". Looks like GPS time
> >> fulfill it?
> >
> > The question depends on what you really mean by GPS time, and if you
> > understand well enough to know the difference. It could be:
> >
> > 1) The clocks aboard the satellites;
> > 2) The time displayed by a properly working GPS receiver;
> > 3) The official GPS time timebase.
> >
> > That website clearly refers to #3, the GPS timebase.
> >
> > The GPS timebase ticks in lockstep with TAI time, and UTC time (except
> > during leap seconds). GPS time is in fact identical to TAI time other
> > than a fixed offset difference. All the relativity stuff, tick rate
> > divisor on the satellites etc. is all behind the scenes and technically
> > don't matter. The GPS timebase could exist even without a functional GPS
> > system in place. I am not sure you understand this.
> >
> >> What do you think, poor halfbrains?
> >
> > Why do you address yourself in that way?
> >
> I have a wristwatch whose hands haven’t moved in a decade. I’m pretty sure
> this does not mean that time has stopped, and I’m pretty sure that
> relativity does not insist that time has stopped because this watch says
> so.
>
> I also have a wall clock that loses 2 minutes a day that I’m about to throw
> out. I’m pretty sure that this does not mean that there are 86,280 seconds
> in a day because this clock says so, and I’m pretty sure that relativity
> does not insist that it’s so anyway.

This means that a clock time unit such as a clock second does not represent the same amount of time in different frames.
>
> I’m pretty sure that Wozniak only understands relativity at the comic-book
> snippet level.
>
> -- means that a clock
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables