We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not)
timekeeping systems of importance; TAI, UTC,
GPS. Do you get it?

None of them is applying the clocks of your
wannabe standard. Do you get it?

Common sense was warning your idiot guru.
And all of you.

On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping systems
> of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS.

Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, some of
which are based on astronomical observations rather than atomic clocks.

> None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard.

Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, this
is flat-out wrong. All three of the timing systems you mentioned are
based on Cs-133 clocks located at rest on earth's geoid. The majority of
clocks used for all three systems are Cs-133 clocks, and they all apply
corrections to clocks not at rest on the geoid (which is essentially all
of them).

Cs-133 clocks are used because at present the second is defined in terms
of the hyperfine transition of the Cs-133 ground state.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 17:46:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping systems
> > of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS.
> Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, some of
> which are based on astronomical observations rather than atomic clocks.
> > None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard.
> Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, this
> is flat-out wrong.

But I mean Cs 133 clocks set to 9 192 631 770 and
elapsing "proper" time of yours.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not)
> timekeeping systems of importance; TAI, UTC,
> GPS. Do you get it?
>
> None of them is applying the clocks of your
> wannabe standard. Do you get it?
>
> Common sense was warning your idiot guru.
> And all of you.

In Albert Einstein's days...a Cuukoo Clock was the standard clock.

(if you know anything about clocks and the kind Einstein used to clock
choo-choo trains.)

but i don't expect anyone here to know dat because yoss had a textbook
teacher brainwash yous.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 00:04:53 UTC+2, The Starmaker wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >
> > We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not)
> > timekeeping systems of importance; TAI, UTC,
> > GPS. Do you get it?
> >
> > None of them is applying the clocks of your
> > wannabe standard. Do you get it?
> >
> > Common sense was warning your idiot guru.
> > And all of you.
> In Albert Einstein's days...a Cuukoo Clock was the standard clock.

And 1/24/60/60 of a day was a standard second.
It is still. New standard, announced in 1968 to make
The Shit less inconsistent- is ignored by all timekeeping
systems we have.

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 9:32:37 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 17:46:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping systems
> > > of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS.
> > Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, some of
> > which are based on astronomical observations rather than atomic clocks.
> > > None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard.
> > Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, this
> > is flat-out wrong.
> But I mean Cs 133 clocks set to 9 192 631 770 and
> elapsing "proper" time of yours.

How is One Cs atom observed and what counts it?

Mitchell Raemsch

On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 19:57:40 UTC+2, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 9:32:37 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 17:46:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping systems
> > > > of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS.
> > > Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, some of
> > > which are based on astronomical observations rather than atomic clocks.
> > > > None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard.
> > > Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, this
> > > is flat-out wrong.
> > But I mean Cs 133 clocks set to 9 192 631 770 and
> > elapsing "proper" time of yours.
> How is One Cs atom observed and what counts it?

It's not atom observed, it's the atom's radiation frequency.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 19:57:40 UTC+2, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 9:32:37 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 17:46:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > > We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping systems
> > > > > of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS.
> > > > Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, some of
> > > > which are based on astronomical observations rather than atomic clocks.
> > > > > None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard.
> > > > Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, this
> > > > is flat-out wrong.
> > > But I mean Cs 133 clocks set to 9 192 631 770 and
> > > elapsing "proper" time of yours.
> > How is One Cs atom observed and what counts it?

No spoonfeeding in ths kindergarten.

> It's not atom observed, it's the atom's radiation frequency.

Yes, and it doesn't really matter in principle
whether you observe many atoms simultaneously
or a single atom (or ion) repeatedly,

Jan

On 6/15/22 11:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 17:46:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping
>>> systems of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS.
>> Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems,
>> some of which are based on astronomical observations rather than
>> atomic clocks.
>>> None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard.
>> Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks,
>> this is flat-out wrong.
>
> But I mean Cs 133 clocks set to 9 192 631 770 and elapsing "proper"
> time of yours.

Yes. That's what I meant by "Cs-133 clock". GPS and TAI are based on
such a clock at rest on earth's geoid, and UTC is equal to TAI minus 37
leap seconds (at present). GPS and TAI average many clocks, but the
clocks they use are different; GPS and TAI differ by a fixed 19 seconds
plus a variable amount typically less than 20 nanoseconds.

You keep blabbering about time systems based on earth's rotation -- that
is UT1; UT1 seconds vary in length as earth's rotation varies. UTC
seconds are the same length as TAI seconds, but UTC adds leap seconds
when appropriate to keep UTC within 1 second of UT1.

Tom Roberts

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 1:58:15 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 19:57:40 UTC+2, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 9:32:37 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 17:46:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > > On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > > > We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping systems
> > > > > > of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS.
> > > > > Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, some of
> > > > > which are based on astronomical observations rather than atomic clocks.
> > > > > > None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard.
> > > > > Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, this
> > > > > is flat-out wrong.
> > > > But I mean Cs 133 clocks set to 9 192 631 770 and
> > > > elapsing "proper" time of yours.
> > > How is One Cs atom observed and what counts it?
> No spoonfeeding in ths kindergarten.
You belong there jan.
> > It's not atom observed, it's the atom's radiation frequency.
How is that observed?
> Yes, and it doesn't really matter in principle
> whether you observe many atoms simultaneously
> or a single atom (or ion) repeatedly,

How do you watch one and count jan?
Mixed Cs atoms cannot be used as a standard.
You must stay at one.

Mitchell Raemsch
>
> Jan

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 8:33:30 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

<Trolling snipped>

Spam reported.
I incite others to do the same.

On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 23:11:40 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/15/22 11:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 17:46:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping
> >>> systems of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS.
> >> Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems,
> >> some of which are based on astronomical observations rather than
> >> atomic clocks.
> >>> None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard.
> >> Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks,
> >> this is flat-out wrong.
> >
> > But I mean Cs 133 clocks set to 9 192 631 770 and elapsing "proper"
> > time of yours.
> Yes. That's what I meant by "Cs-133 clock". GPS and TAI are based on
> such a clock

You often admit that the clocks on GPS satellites are not
the standard ones. But I understand perfectly why it's
comfortable to you to pretend differently at the moment.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 23:11:40 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 6/15/22 11:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 17:46:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> > >> On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >>> We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping
> > >>> systems of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS.
> > >> Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems,
> > >> some of which are based on astronomical observations rather than
> > >> atomic clocks.
> > >>> None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard.
> > >> Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks,
> > >> this is flat-out wrong.
> > >
> > > But I mean Cs 133 clocks set to 9 192 631 770 and elapsing "proper"
> > > time of yours.
> > Yes. That's what I meant by "Cs-133 clock". GPS and TAI are based on
> > such a clock
>
> You often admit that the clocks on GPS satellites are not
> the standard ones.

Of course they cannot be. Their orbits are always elliptical,
so the clock rate varies over the orbit.
This effect is routinely corrected for,
to sufficient accuracy for correct GPS,
but it is not what you want in a standard clock.

> But I understand perfectly why it's
> comfortable to you to pretend differently at the moment.

Is there anything at all that you understand,
let alone perfectly?
That's news,

Jan

On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 10:36:21 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 23:11:40 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On 6/15/22 11:32 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 17:46:58 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > >> On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > >>> We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping
> > > >>> systems of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS.
> > > >> Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems,
> > > >> some of which are based on astronomical observations rather than
> > > >> atomic clocks.
> > > >>> None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard.
> > > >> Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks,
> > > >> this is flat-out wrong.
> > > >
> > > > But I mean Cs 133 clocks set to 9 192 631 770 and elapsing "proper"
> > > > time of yours.
> > > Yes. That's what I meant by "Cs-133 clock". GPS and TAI are based on
> > > such a clock
> >
> > You often admit that the clocks on GPS satellites are not
> > the standard ones.
> Of course they cannot be.

Of course they cannot be. Your standards can only
be applied in your moronic gedankenwelt...:(
Common sense was warning your idiot guru.

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 11:46:58 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping systems
> > of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS.
> Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, some of
> which are based on astronomical observations rather than atomic clocks.
> > None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard.
> Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, this
> is flat-out wrong. All three of the timing systems you mentioned are
> based on Cs-133 clocks located at rest on earth's geoid. The majority of
> clocks used for all three systems are Cs-133 clocks, and they all apply
> corrections to clocks not at rest on the geoid (which is essentially all
> of them).
>
> Cs-133 clocks are used because at present the second is defined in term
> of the hyperfine transition of the Cs-133 ground state.

There is no mechanical or atomic clock can claim to be standard. Why? Because a clock second on such a clock will represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames.
The observe'rs clock second at the rest frame of the clock will represent a specific amount of absolute times and this amount of absolute time is represented by gamma seconds on a moving clock. This means that there is no clock time uni (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.

The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock as follows:i
1. The ground clock second is represented by 9,192,631,770 transitions of the Cs 133 atom.
2. A GPS second is refined to have 9,192,631,774.1617 transitions of the Cs 133 atom.
3. This means that the ground clock second and the redefined GPS second will contain the same amount of absolute time..
4. And this means that the redefined GPS second and the ground clock second are in synch with each other in terms of absolute time.

Ken Seto

On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 15:51:19 UTC+2, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 11:46:58 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping systems
> > > of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS.
> > Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, some of
> > which are based on astronomical observations rather than atomic clocks.
> > > None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard.
> > Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, this
> > is flat-out wrong. All three of the timing systems you mentioned are
> > based on Cs-133 clocks located at rest on earth's geoid. The majority of
> > clocks used for all three systems are Cs-133 clocks, and they all apply
> > corrections to clocks not at rest on the geoid (which is essentially all
> > of them).
> >
> > Cs-133 clocks are used because at present the second is defined in term
> > of the hyperfine transition of the Cs-133 ground state.
> There is no mechanical or atomic clock can claim to be standard. Why? Because a clock second on such a clock will represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames.
> The observe'rs clock second at the rest frame of the clock will represent a specific amount of absolute times and this amount of absolute time is represented by gamma seconds on a moving clock. This means that there is no clock time uni (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.
>
> The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock as follows:i
> 1. The ground clock second is represented by 9,192,631,770 transitions of the Cs 133 atom.
> 2. A GPS second is refined to have 9,192,631,774.1617 transitions of the Cs 133 atom.
> 3. This means that the ground clock second and the redefined GPS second

Ken, GPS second is not the redefined one, it's ordinary, some
centuries old second. The redefined one is the ISO idiocy.

On 6/21/22 8:51 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 11:46:58 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> Cs-133 clocks are used because at present the second is defined in
>> term of the hyperfine transition of the Cs-133 ground state.
>
> There is no mechanical or atomic clock can claim to be standard.

Nonsense! At present, Cs-133 clocks _ARE_ standard -- they define what
"1 second" means. And they do so wherever they are located.

> Because a clock second on such a clock will represents a different
> amount of absolute time in different frames.

So you claim but have failed to demonstrate. You are re-defining
standard words to have your decidedly NON-standard meanings. THAT'S
HOPELESS.

> The GPS uses absolute time [...]

No, it doesn't. It uses standard clocks at rest on earth's geoid to
define the time coordinate of its ECI coordinates. There is nothing
"absolute" about this, it is specific to the earth, and is valid only
out to GPS satellite altitude (or so).

Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> On 6/21/22 8:51 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 11:46:58 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> Cs-133 clocks are used because at present the second is defined in
> >> term of the hyperfine transition of the Cs-133 ground state.
> >
> > There is no mechanical or atomic clock can claim to be standard.
>
> Nonsense! At present, Cs-133 clocks _ARE_ standard -- they define what
> "1 second" means. And they do so wherever they are located.
>
> > Because a clock second on such a clock will represents a different
> > amount of absolute time in different frames.
>
> So you claim but have failed to demonstrate. You are re-defining
> standard words to have your decidedly NON-standard meanings. THAT'S
> HOPELESS.
>
> > The GPS uses absolute time [...]
>
> No, it doesn't. It uses standard clocks at rest on earth's geoid to
> define the time coordinate of its ECI coordinates. There is nothing
> "absolute" about this, it is specific to the earth, and is valid only
> out to GPS satellite altitude (or so).
>
> Tom Roberts

But the standard clocks that Albert Einstein used were called Cukoo
Clocks. That's a fact, right?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 6/21/2022 11:04 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/21/22 8:51 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 11:46:58 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> Cs-133 clocks are used because at present the second is defined in
>>> term of the hyperfine transition of the Cs-133 ground state.
>>
>> There is no mechanical or atomic clock can claim to be standard.
>
> Nonsense! At present, Cs-133 clocks _ARE_ standard -- they define what
> "1 second" means. And they do so wherever they are located.
>
>> Because a clock second on such a clock will represents a different
>> amount of absolute time in different frames.
>
> So you claim but have failed to demonstrate. You are re-defining
> standard words to have your decidedly NON-standard meanings. THAT'S
> HOPELESS.
>
>> The GPS uses absolute time [...]
>
> No, it doesn't. It uses standard clocks at rest on earth's geoid to
> define the time coordinate of its ECI coordinates. There is nothing
> "absolute" about this, it is specific to the earth, and is valid only
> out to GPS satellite altitude (or so).
>
> Tom Roberts

"Standards" function as intended because of communal acceptance.

Bear in mind they are never absolute. Go back to your introduction to
the sciences, typically some inclined plane exercises, where you were
instructed to eliminate inconvenient data. The elimination of
inconvenient data is the second reason why standards work.

Anomalies aren't.

On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 18:04:17 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/21/22 8:51 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 11:46:58 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> Cs-133 clocks are used because at present the second is defined in
> >> term of the hyperfine transition of the Cs-133 ground state.
> >
> > There is no mechanical or atomic clock can claim to be standard.
> Nonsense! At present, Cs-133 clocks _ARE_ standard -- they define what
> "1 second" means.

This definition is only valid in your gedankenwelt. No serious
timekeeping system is applying your primitive idiocy.

> > The GPS uses absolute time [...]
>
> No, it doesn't. It uses standard clocks at rest on earth's geoid to
> define the time coordinate of its ECI coordinates. There is nothing
> "absolute" about this, it is specific to the earth, and is valid only
> out to GPS satellite altitude (or so).

Will you be impudent enough to lie also that it
is using your local time, poor stinker?

On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 20:25:59 UTC+2, whodat wrote:

> "Standards" function as intended because of communal acceptance.

And as anyone can check in GPS, TAI, UTC - your idiocies have no.

On 6/21/22 1:28 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 18:04:17 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 6/21/22 8:51 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 11:46:58 AM UTC-4, tjrob137
>>> wrote:
>>>> Cs-133 clocks are used because at present the second is
>>>> defined in term of the hyperfine transition of the Cs-133
>>>> ground state.
>>>
>>> There is no mechanical or atomic clock can claim to be standard.
>> Nonsense! At present, Cs-133 clocks _ARE_ standard -- they define
>> what "1 second" means.
>
> This definition is only valid in your gedankenwelt. No serious
> timekeeping system is applying your primitive idiocy.

You are the one living in a "gedankenwelt". In the real world,
essentially everything you say is wrong, including this.

[Of course what I said is not "primitive idiocy".]

Both TAI and GPS time are determined by (virtual) Cs-133 atomic clocks
at rest on earth's geoid, and UTC is defined by TAI minus the current
number of leap seconds (37 as of this writing).

Note that astronomers use UTC, TAI, or Julian Dates, depending on their
specific application. Julian dates are derived from UTC.

So _ALL_ "serious" timekeeping systems are based on Cs-133 atomic clocks.

Tom Roberts

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 11:46:58 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping systems
> > > of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS.
> > Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, some of
> > which are based on astronomical observations rather than atomic clocks.
> > > None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard.
> > Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, this
> > is flat-out wrong. All three of the timing systems you mentioned are
> > based on Cs-133 clocks located at rest on earth's geoid. The majority of
> > clocks used for all three systems are Cs-133 clocks, and they all apply
> > corrections to clocks not at rest on the geoid (which is essentially all
> > of them).
> >
> > Cs-133 clocks are used because at present the second is defined in term
> > of the hyperfine transition of the Cs-133 ground state.
>
> There is no mechanical or atomic clock can claim to be standard.

Clocks are nobody, and they can't claim anything.
What is, or isn't, a standard is decided upon
by a body of competent professionals at a CGPM conference.

Sorry, you are out, not even invited,

Jan

On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 22:36:54 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 11:46:58 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On 6/15/22 12:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > We have 3 (partially dependent, partially not) timekeeping systems
> > > > of importance; TAI, UTC, GPS.
> > > Yes. There are, of course, additional worldwide timing systems, some of
> > > which are based on astronomical observations rather than atomic clocks.
> > > > None of them is applying the clocks of your wannabe standard.
> > > Hmmm. Guessing that by "wannabe standard" you mean Cs-133 clocks, this
> > > is flat-out wrong. All three of the timing systems you mentioned are
> > > based on Cs-133 clocks located at rest on earth's geoid. The majority of
> > > clocks used for all three systems are Cs-133 clocks, and they all apply
> > > corrections to clocks not at rest on the geoid (which is essentially all
> > > of them).
> > >
> > > Cs-133 clocks are used because at present the second is defined in term
> > > of the hyperfine transition of the Cs-133 ground state.
> >
> > There is no mechanical or atomic clock can claim to be standard.
> Clocks are nobody, and they can't claim anything.
> What is, or isn't, a standard is decided upon
> by a body of competent professionals at a CGPM conference.

If they were really competent professionals they wouldn't
fool themself with a wannabe standard ignored by
all timekeeping systems we have (TAI, UTC, GPS).

On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 22:17:01 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/21/22 1:28 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 18:04:17 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 6/21/22 8:51 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 11:46:58 AM UTC-4, tjrob137
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Cs-133 clocks are used because at present the second is
> >>>> defined in term of the hyperfine transition of the Cs-133
> >>>> ground state.
> >>>
> >>> There is no mechanical or atomic clock can claim to be standard.
> >> Nonsense! At present, Cs-133 clocks _ARE_ standard -- they define
> >> what "1 second" means.
> >
> > This definition is only valid in your gedankenwelt. No serious
> > timekeeping system is applying your primitive idiocy.
> You are the one living in a "gedankenwelt". In the real world,
> essentially everything you say is wrong, including this.

You've admitted many times that GPS clocks are not
of your wannabe "standard". Neither are TAI (average -
means sometimes less, sometimes more than your
"standard" demands) , not mentioning UTC (which
is a pure solar time). But, of course, impudent lies
and denying himself is exactly what is predicted about
a fanatic relativistic idiot, like you.