On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 12:04:17 PM UTC-4, 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_d eat it too. standard -- they define what
> "1 second" means. And they do so wherever they are located.

If "a second" is a standard of time, then there is no "time dilation" and there is no need for the LT.to figure out the value of a moving clock second. It appears that you are trying to have your cake and at it too....that's not allwed.
The only standard of time is the absolute time (AT). AT is not sensitive to motion or gravity. Unfortunately there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute;ute time in different frames.,

> > 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

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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).

Without them you wouldn't have that TAI to begin with,

Jan

On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 11:36:48 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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).
> Without them you wouldn't have that TAI to begin with,

Of course, they weren't stupid enough to apply what they
decided; good, but still, If they were really competent
professionals - they wouldn't decide it.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 11:36:48 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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).
> > Without them you wouldn't have that TAI to begin with,
>
> Of course, they weren't stupid enough to apply what they
> decided; good, but still, If they were really competent
> professionals - they wouldn't decide it.

There is nothing to decide,

Jan

On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 20:07:18 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 11:36:48 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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).
> > > Without them you wouldn't have that TAI to begin with,
> >
> > Of course, they weren't stupid enough to apply what they
> > decided; good, but still, If they were really competent
> > professionals - they wouldn't decide it.
> There is nothing to decide,

Quoting:
> > > > > What is, or isn't, a standard is decided upon

Poor stupid Mike can blame Newton, but it was the
decision of the ISO morons that the Cs are to count
9 192 631 770/s. Of course, sane GPS staff has
ignored it.

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 4:36:54 PM UTC-4, 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, any frameded 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.

What they decided is based on the wrong assumption that 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation represents a constant amount of time in different frames.
This is wrong for the following reasons:
1. the speed of arrival of the required energy to complete a transition of the Cs 133 atom is dependent
on the absolute motion of the clock.
2. No clock is not in a state of absolute rest. Therefore a clock second does not represent a constant amount
of time in different frames.
3. Therefore a clock second in any frame does not represent a constant amount of time.
>
> Sorry, you are out, not even invited,

That's why they made the wrong assumption that a clock second IN ANY FRAME REPRESENTS A CONSTANT AMOUNT OF TIME (ABSOLUTE TIME).

On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 14:11:16 UTC+2, seto...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Clocks are nobody, any frameded 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.
> What they decided is based on the wrong assumption that 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation represents a constant amount of time in different frames.

What they dedcided is ignored, GPS is set to 9,192,631,774.
Common sense was warning those arrogant morons.

El sábado, 25 de junio de 2022 a las 9:04:26 UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com escribió:
> On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 14:11:16 UTC+2, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Clocks are nobody, any frameded 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.
> > What they decided is based on the wrong assumption that 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation represents a constant amount of time in different frames.
> What they dedcided is ignored, GPS is set to 9,192,631,774.
> Common sense was warning those arrogant morons.

Fich in fact it is wrong. What Cesium GPS atomic clocks do is resonate with a 9,192,631,770 Hz oscillator (which is the only frequency which will maximize the hyperfine transition radiation). Using counters, the GPS working frequency is set to 10.22999999543 MHz, which is received at ground as 10.23 MHz.

On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 16:40:07 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El sábado, 25 de junio de 2022 a las 9:04:26 UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com escribió:
> > On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 14:11:16 UTC+2, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Clocks are nobody, any frameded 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.
> > > What they decided is based on the wrong assumption that 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation represents a constant amount of time in different frames.
> > What they dedcided is ignored, GPS is set to 9,192,631,774.
> > Common sense was warning those arrogant morons.
> Fich in fact it is wrong. What Cesium GPS atomic clocks do is resonate with a 9,192,631,770 Hz

Direct measurement result - comparing this frequency
to 1 second counted by the local clock of the
satellite - gives 9,192,631,774. Sorry, poor
halfbrain, good bye, The Shit.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 4:36:54 PM UTC-4, 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, any frameded 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.
>
> What they decided is based on the wrong assumption that 9,192,631,770
> periods of Cs 133 radiation represents a constant amount of time in
> different frames.

They assumed nothing of the kind.

> This is wrong for the following reasons:
> 1. the speed of arrival of the required energy to complete a transition of
> the Cs 133 atom is dependent on the absolute motion of the clock.

Show it experimentally. (instead of merely verbally)

> 2. No clock is not in a state of absolute rest. Therefore a clock second
> does not represent a constant amount of time in different frames.
> 3. Therefore a clock second in any frame does not represent a constant
> amount of time.
>
> > Sorry, you are out, not even invited,
>
> That's why they made the wrong assumption that a clock second IN ANY FRAME
> REPRESENTS A CONSTANT AMOUNT OF TIME (ABSOLUTE TIME).

The CGPM cannot make 'wrong' decisions. [1]
The second is what they say it is,
and absolute time is none of their business.
(because it cannot be measured)

Jan

[1] As a matter of fact they don't decide by voting.
None is needed, because resolutions
are only put before the general assembly
when there is unanimous agreement about the content.
If there isn't the matter is deferred for further study.

On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 20:09:35 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> > That's why they made the wrong assumption that a clock second IN ANY FRAME
> > REPRESENTS A CONSTANT AMOUNT OF TIME (ABSOLUTE TIME).
> The CGPM cannot make 'wrong' decisions. [1]

Samely as comerade Lenin.

> The second is what they say it is,

No. Sorry, poor fanatic stinker.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 20:09:35 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > > That's why they made the wrong assumption that a clock second IN ANY FRAME
> > > REPRESENTS A CONSTANT AMOUNT OF TIME (ABSOLUTE TIME).
> > The CGPM cannot make 'wrong' decisions. [1]
>
> Samely as comerade Lenin.

Correct. Setting units of weight and measure
has always been a core business of states,
from the earliest times, when states were invented, onwards.
Originally by kings, some 5000 years ago.

Nowadays, with the adoption of the metric system,
it has become a collective of states,
that have agreed to common standards, by treaty.
What the state's representatives decide at a CGPM
automatically becomes the law of the land,
at least on most of the planet.

You will no longer be executed for using false measure,
like in those good old times,
but you can certainly be punished for it,

Jan

On 6/25/2022 4:36 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 20:09:35 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>>> That's why they made the wrong assumption that a clock second IN ANY FRAME
>>>> REPRESENTS A CONSTANT AMOUNT OF TIME (ABSOLUTE TIME).
>>> The CGPM cannot make 'wrong' decisions. [1]
>>
>> Samely as comerade Lenin.
>
> Correct. Setting units of weight and measure
> has always been a core business of states,
> from the earliest times, when states were invented, onwards.
> Originally by kings, some 5000 years ago.
>
> Nowadays, with the adoption of the metric system,
> it has become a collective of states,
> that have agreed to common standards, by treaty.
> What the state's representatives decide at a CGPM
> automatically becomes the law of the land,
> at least on most of the planet.
>
> You will no longer be executed for using false measure,
> like in those good old times,
> but you can certainly be punished for it,
>
Yes.

Comrade Lenin likely took Russia from some old Russian units of length,
mass and time to the modern metric units, as was his right as dictator
of the USSR. He did update time, changing the calendar from Julian to
the Gregorian calendar, which is why the anniversary of the October
Revolution was celebrated in November.

Probably in every single country, in 1967 or not long after, there's
some obscure piece of legislation or proclamation, mentioning the
second, cesium, and the number 9,192,631,770. Even in Poland, despite
the screams of some janitor, which were ignored, of course.

On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 22:36:28 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 20:09:35 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > > > That's why they made the wrong assumption that a clock second IN ANY FRAME
> > > > REPRESENTS A CONSTANT AMOUNT OF TIME (ABSOLUTE TIME).
> > > The CGPM cannot make 'wrong' decisions. [1]
> >
> > Samely as comerade Lenin.
> Correct. Setting units of weight and measure
> has always been a core business of states,
> from the earliest times, when states were invented, onwards.
> Originally by kings, some 5000 years ago.

Of states, kings and alike. Not of insane religious gurus
discovering imagined Great Mystical Essence of the Core.
You may keep announcing how proper clocks should work
- GPS crew didn't share your madness, game over.

On Sunday, 26 June 2022 at 00:14:50 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 6/25/2022 4:36 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 20:09:35 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>
> >>>> That's why they made the wrong assumption that a clock second IN ANY FRAME
> >>>> REPRESENTS A CONSTANT AMOUNT OF TIME (ABSOLUTE TIME).
> >>> The CGPM cannot make 'wrong' decisions. [1]
> >>
> >> Samely as comerade Lenin.
> >
> > Correct. Setting units of weight and measure
> > has always been a core business of states,
> > from the earliest times, when states were invented, onwards.
> > Originally by kings, some 5000 years ago.
> >
> > Nowadays, with the adoption of the metric system,
> > it has become a collective of states,
> > that have agreed to common standards, by treaty.
> > What the state's representatives decide at a CGPM
> > automatically becomes the law of the land,
> > at least on most of the planet.
> >
> > You will no longer be executed for using false measure,
> > like in those good old times,
> > but you can certainly be punished for it,
> >
> Yes.
>
> Comrade Lenin likely took Russia from some old Russian units of length,
> mass and time to the modern metric units, as was his right as dictator
> of the USSR. He did update time, changing the calendar from Julian to
> the Gregorian calendar, which is why the anniversary of the October
> Revolution was celebrated in November.
>
> Probably in every single country, in 1967 or not long after, there's
> some obscure piece of legislation or proclamation, mentioning the
> second, cesium, and the number 9,192,631,770.

Unfortunately, just some years later serious people
responsible for serious measurements have DECIDED
to switch it to 9,192,631,774. Practice, stupid Mike.
This is where your madness ends. This is where any
violating common sense madness ends.

On 6/25/2022 11:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 16:40:07 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
>> El sábado, 25 de junio de 2022 a las 9:04:26 UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com escribió:
>>> On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 14:11:16 UTC+2, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Clocks are nobody, any frameded 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.
>>>> What they decided is based on the wrong assumption that 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation represents a constant amount of time in different frames.
>>> What they dedcided is ignored, GPS is set to 9,192,631,774.

And it set to that so it would appear as if it was ticking at
9,192,631,770 ticks/second to an observer on the ground (that is,
ordinary GPS receivers) by compensating for general relativity.

>>> Common sense was warning those arrogant morons.
>> Fich in fact it is wrong. What Cesium GPS atomic clocks do is resonate with a 9,192,631,770 Hz
>
> Direct measurement result - comparing this frequency
> to 1 second counted by the local clock of the
> satellite - gives 9,192,631,774.

So that it would appear (by generated signals such as the 10.23 MHz
carrier) as if it was set to 9,192,631,770 to a ground observer. It's in
the GPS specs, of course.

Don't forget how this was tested on the first GPS prototype satellite.
It was initially set to "Newton" with the clock divisor set to
9,192,631,770 cycles/second, just like every single other cesium clock
produced. It was too inaccurate. After 20 days, they switched it to
"Einstein", changing the divisor to 9,192,631,774.1, and then it had the
predicted accuracy, its carrier (now transmitted at 10.22999999543 MHz)
was now correctly received at 10.23 MHz.

How you can believe claims which obviously conflict with each other is
fascinating to me. Perhaps I should have chosen a career as a
kookologist, with you as a study object.

Sorry, poor
> halfbrain, good bye, The Shit.
>

On Sunday, 26 June 2022 at 07:37:28 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 6/25/2022 11:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 16:40:07 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> >> El sábado, 25 de junio de 2022 a las 9:04:26 UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com escribió:
> >>> On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 14:11:16 UTC+2, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Clocks are nobody, any frameded 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.
> >>>> What they decided is based on the wrong assumption that 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation represents a constant amount of time in different frames.
> >>> What they dedcided is ignored, GPS is set to 9,192,631,774.
> And it set to that so it would appear as if it was ticking at
> 9,192,631,770 ticks/second to an observer on the ground (that is,
> ordinary GPS receivers) by compensating for general relativity.
> >>> Common sense was warning those arrogant morons.
> >> Fich in fact it is wrong. What Cesium GPS atomic clocks do is resonate with a 9,192,631,770 Hz
> >
> > Direct measurement result - comparing this frequency
> > to 1 second counted by the local clock of the
> > satellite - gives 9,192,631,774.
> So that it would appear

Don't give a damn what "would appear" stupid Mike.
Direct measurement - comparing this frequency to
the real clock of a GPS satellite (which, as we both
know is set to 9,192,631,774) gives 9,192,631,774,
nothing else.

> Don't forget how this was tested on the first GPS prototype satellite.
> It was initially set to "Newton" with the clock divisor set to
> 9,192,631,770

Stupid Mike, get conscious. Was that really Newton that has decided
about 9,192,631,770 for Cs clocks? You've written lately about
10 times here who has. It wasn't any "Newton" setting, it was
the setting of ISO and "proper time" of your idiot gurus.

How you can believe claims which obviously conflict with each other is
fascinating to me. Perhaps I should have chosen a career as a
kookologist, with you as a study object. Well, that's exactly what
I did.

Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 6/25/2022 4:36 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 20:09:35 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>
> >>>> That's why they made the wrong assumption that a clock second IN ANY
> >>>> FRAME REPRESENTS A CONSTANT AMOUNT OF TIME (ABSOLUTE TIME).
> >>> The CGPM cannot make 'wrong' decisions. [1]
> >>
> >> Samely as comerade Lenin.
> >
> > Correct. Setting units of weight and measure
> > has always been a core business of states,
> > from the earliest times, when states were invented, onwards.
> > Originally by kings, some 5000 years ago.
> >
> > Nowadays, with the adoption of the metric system,
> > it has become a collective of states,
> > that have agreed to common standards, by treaty.
> > What the state's representatives decide at a CGPM
> > automatically becomes the law of the land,
> > at least on most of the planet.
> >
> > You will no longer be executed for using false measure,
> > like in those good old times,
> > but you can certainly be punished for it,
> >
> Yes.
>
> Comrade Lenin likely took Russia from some old Russian units of length,
> mass and time to the modern metric units, as was his right as dictator
> of the USSR.

Not quite. Czar Peter the Great had already modernised Russian units
by decreeing that British imperial units should be used.
(he was keen on opening Russia to the West, and on promoting trade)

Russia was metricated in 1925,
on order of the Council of People's Commissars.
Lenin was merely chairman of that Council.
Other notable members were Trotsky and Stalin.
The Soviet Union didn't become a full-fledged dictatorship
until a decade later, under Stalin.

> He did update time, changing the calendar from Julian to
> the Gregorian calendar, which is why the anniversary of the October
> Revolution was celebrated in November.

That was long overdue.
And it certainly was not Lenin by himself who did it.

> Probably in every single country, in 1967 or not long after, there's
> some obscure piece of legislation or proclamation, mentioning the
> second, cesium, and the number 9,192,631,770. Even in Poland, despite
> the screams of some janitor, which were ignored, of course.

Yes, in quite practical things.
All measuring instruments used for purposes of trade
need to be calibrated.
(and have a sticker or mark on them to prove it)
A tape rule that you buy in a DIY store will probably have
'not for purposes of trade' printed on it,
so you cannot legally use it to sell cloth by the meter.

If our Polish fried ever takes a taxi cab it will have a meter
that is certified to read in correct seconds.
(derived from a cesium clock, within an acceptable tolerance)

Jan

On Sunday, 26 June 2022 at 11:22:46 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> If our Polish fried ever takes a taxi cab it will have a meter
> that is certified to read in correct seconds.
> (derived from a cesium clock, within an acceptable tolerance)

Sorry, poor halfbrain, sane people have different
ways to derive a second and you're enchanting the
reality, together with your fellow idiots.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, 26 June 2022 at 11:22:46 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > If our Polish fried ever takes a taxi cab it will have a meter
> > that is certified to read in correct seconds.
> > (derived from a cesium clock, within an acceptable tolerance)
>
> Sorry, poor halfbrain, sane people have different
> ways to derive a second and you're enchanting the
> reality, together with your fellow idiots.

Now you have me curious:
How do you 'enchant a reality'?

Please be specific,

Jan

On Sunday, 26 June 2022 at 14:10:02 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 26 June 2022 at 11:22:46 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > > If our Polish fried ever takes a taxi cab it will have a meter
> > > that is certified to read in correct seconds.
> > > (derived from a cesium clock, within an acceptable tolerance)
> >
> > Sorry, poor halfbrain, sane people have different
> > ways to derive a second and you're enchanting the
> > reality, together with your fellow idiots.
> Now you have me curious:
> How do you 'enchant a reality'?

You enchant the reality by announcing and
pretending that 9,192,631,774 clocks of GPS
are perfectly matching and obeying your
9,192,631,770 ISO nonsense. Or (like stupid
Mike) by announcing and pretending that
clocks set to ISO 9,192,631,770 are in an
obvious "Newton mode". Or (from other
tales) that priests of Jesus are always
modest and poor, that all the communists
are just humple servants of working people
and so on.