Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #671335 > unrolled thread

Technical details

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Technical details Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-29 11:05 +0200
    Re: Technical details "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-07-01 19:33 +0200
      Re: Technical details Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-07-01 21:56 +0200
        Re: Technical details "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-07-02 13:09 +0200
          Re: Technical details Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-07-02 14:11 +0200
            Re: Technical details "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-07-02 15:23 +0200
              Re: Technical details Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-07-02 15:56 +0200
                Re: Technical details "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-07-02 18:57 +0200
                  Re: Technical details Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-07-02 19:10 +0200
      Re: Technical details Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-07-03 08:31 +0200
        Re: Technical details Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-07-03 10:21 +0200
        Re: Technical details The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-07-04 12:21 -0700
          Re: Technical details The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-07-04 12:34 -0700
          Re: Technical details Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-07-05 06:32 +0200
            Re: Technical details The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-07-04 23:54 -0700

#671335 — Technical details

Well, I'm an engineer.
Suppose I would like to prepare a clock counting
"proper time" nonsense for a GPS satellite.

Well, it should be counting your SI second, sure.
What is next? Should it have 24(or 12)hr cycle, like
ordinary clock have? Another cycle? No cycle at all,
like stopwatch - counting to infinity? When the
GPS time is '2026-07-01 00:00:00.00000000000000"
what should the "proper time clock" read?

Such details may be insignificant in your gedankenwelt.
In the real world they're crucial. And you don't
know... your idiot guru has never had any concept
except "it should be differently". He presented no
alternative for classical time, he was too stupid
to even notice he should. And so are you.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#671340

Den 29.06.2026 11:05, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> Well, I'm an engineer.

Then you know that "time" is what we measure with clocks.

However, "time" is used with different meanings, so
now we (engineers and scientists) more precisely say:
"proper time is what we measures with a single clock".

> Suppose I would like to prepare a clock counting
> "proper time" nonsense for a GPS satellite.

Any clock measures proper time, so any clock would do.

> Well, it should be counting your SI second, sure.

If you would like your clock to be precise and use
the time unit "second" as defined by SI, the clock
would have to be an atomic clock.

> What is next? Should it have 24(or 12)hr cycle, like
> ordinary clock have? Another cycle? No cycle at all,
> like stopwatch - counting to infinity? 

That's up to you. SI only defines the duration of a second,
you are free to group the seconds as you wish.

> When the
> GPS time is '2026-07-01 00:00:00.00000000000000"

GPS-time has the same rate as UTC, but is currently
18 seconds ahead of UTC.

As you know, there is a clock in a GPS SV which by definition
measures proper time. But this clock doesn't use second as
time unit, its time unit is (1 - 4.4647e-10) second.
This makes the SV clock synchronous with UTC.

> what should the "proper time clock" read?

That's up to you. What is the purpose of your clock counting
"proper time" with second as time unit?
The proper time of what should it measure?

> 
> Such details may be insignificant in your gedankenwelt.
> In the real world they're crucial. 

Quite.
A clock must be built for its purpose.
A stopwatch built for timing athletes will not have
months and years.
GPS-time is the same as UTC (but 18 seconds ahead).
The local time in Poland is UTC + 2 hours. Don't you
know if it is 12 or 24 hours cycle?

> And you don't
> know... your idiot guru has never had any concept
> except "it should be differently". He presented no
> alternative for classical time, he was too stupid
> to even notice he should. And so are you.
> 

Einstein: "Zeit ist das, was man an der Uhr abliest".

This is indeed "classical time".

Newton used clocks to measure time.

Why do you think Einstein should have presented a different
alternative to this?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671341

On 7/1/2026 7:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 29.06.2026 11:05, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> Well, I'm an engineer.
> 
> Then you know that "time" is what we measure with clocks.

Sure, sure - and even such a disgusting
piece of lying shit as you are can't lie
non stop, so sometimes you admit that what
they really measure don't  fit the delusions
of your idiot guru at all.

> 
> However, "time" is used with different meanings, so
> now we (engineers and scientists) more precisely say:
> "proper time is what we measures with a single clock".

You're not a scientist. And most of
engineers don't give a damn to your
"proper time" idiocy.


> 
>> Suppose I would like to prepare a clock counting
>> "proper time" nonsense for a GPS satellite.
> 
> Any clock measures proper time, so any clock would do.
>> Well, it should be counting your SI second, sure.
> 
> If you would like your clock to be precise and use
> the time unit "second" as defined by SI, the clock
> would have to be an atomic clock.
> 
>> What is next? Should it have 24(or 12)hr cycle, like
>> ordinary clock have? Another cycle? No cycle at all,
>> like stopwatch - counting to infinity? 
> 
> That's up to you. SI only defines the duration of a second,
> you are free to group the seconds as you wish.

Exactly what I told. Nobody of your bunch
of idiots ever counted time your nonsenical
way, you don't even know how to start.

> Newton used clocks to measure time.
> 
> Why do you think Einstein should have presented a different
> alternative to this?

Because clocks are conceptually designed  to
fit Earth time and complement the Earth day. The
idiot was too stupid  to notice that, of course.






> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671344

Den 01.07.2026 21:56, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 7/1/2026 7:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 29.06.2026 11:05, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>> Well, I'm an engineer.
>>
>> Then you know that "time" is what we measure with clocks.
> 
> Sure, sure - and even such a disgusting
> piece of lying shit as you are can't lie
> non stop, so sometimes you admit that what
> they really measure don't  fit the delusions
> of your idiot guru at all.
> 
>>
>> However, "time" is used with different meanings, so
>> now we (engineers and scientists) more precisely say:
>> "proper time is what we measures with a single clock".
> 
> You're not a scientist. And most of
> engineers don't give a damn to your
> "proper time" idiocy.
> 

You sit in your car. You wish to measure the time from
you start driving to you arrive at your destination.

How do you do it?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671345

On 7/2/2026 1:09 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 01.07.2026 21:56, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 7/1/2026 7:33 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 29.06.2026 11:05, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>> Well, I'm an engineer.
>>>
>>> Then you know that "time" is what we measure with clocks.
>>
>> Sure, sure - and even such a disgusting
>> piece of lying shit as you are can't lie
>> non stop, so sometimes you admit that what
>> they really measure don't  fit the delusions
>> of your idiot guru at all.
>>
>>>
>>> However, "time" is used with different meanings, so
>>> now we (engineers and scientists) more precisely say:
>>> "proper time is what we measures with a single clock".
>>
>> You're not a scientist. And most of
>> engineers don't give a damn to your
>> "proper time" idiocy.
>>
> 
> You sit in your car. You wish to measure the time from
> you start driving to you arrive at your destination.
> 
> How do you do it?

I'm noticing the time of start and the time
of end - then subtract. Between sane people
I don't even need "my" clock for that.


> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671347

Den 02.07.2026 14:11, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 7/2/2026 1:09 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> You sit in your car. You wish to measure the time from
>> you start driving to you arrive at your destination.
>>
>> How do you do it?
> 
> I'm noticing the time of start and the time
> of end - then subtract. Between sane people
> I don't even need "my" clock for that.
> 

If you use a clock then you have measured
the proper duration of your journey.

Well done!

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671348

On 7/2/2026 3:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 02.07.2026 14:11, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 7/2/2026 1:09 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>> You sit in your car. You wish to measure the time from
>>> you start driving to you arrive at your destination.
>>>
>>> How do you do it?
>>
>> I'm noticing the time of start and the time
>> of end - then subtract. Between sane people
>> I don't even need "my" clock for that.
>>
> 
> If you use a clock then you have measured
> the proper duration of your journey.

Nope. I measured UTC duration of
my journey, nobody sane cares about
your "proper time" idiocy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671350

Den 02.07.2026 15:56, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 7/2/2026 3:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 02.07.2026 14:11, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>> On 7/2/2026 1:09 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You sit in your car. You wish to measure the time from
>>>> you start driving to you arrive at your destination.
>>>>
>>>> How do you do it?
>>>
>>> I'm noticing the time of start and the time
>>> of end - then subtract. Between sane people
>>> I don't even need "my" clock for that.
>>>
>>
>> If you use a clock then you have measured
>> the proper duration of your journey.
> 
> Nope. I measured UTC duration of
> my journey, nobody sane cares about
> your "proper time" idiocy.
> 

You didn't use a clock? :-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671353

On 7/2/2026 6:57 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 02.07.2026 15:56, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 7/2/2026 3:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 02.07.2026 14:11, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>> On 7/2/2026 1:09 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You sit in your car. You wish to measure the time from
>>>>> you start driving to you arrive at your destination.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you do it?
>>>>
>>>> I'm noticing the time of start and the time
>>>> of end - then subtract. Between sane people
>>>> I don't even need "my" clock for that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you use a clock then you have measured
>>> the proper duration of your journey.
>>
>> Nope. I measured UTC duration of
>> my journey, nobody sane cares about
>> your "proper time" idiocy.
>>
> 
> You didn't use a clock? :-D

I didn't use "my" clock.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671354

Am Mittwoch000001, 01.07.2026 um 19:33 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 29.06.2026 11:05, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> Well, I'm an engineer.
> 
> Then you know that "time" is what we measure with clocks.


that's nonsense, since 'is' (in the statement above) means:

the 'thing' we call 'time' would depend on clocks.

But that is absolutely untrue.

That would be equivalent to:
'the quantity length' would depend on yardsticks.

Instead:
we have something that we call 'time', which can be measured with clocks 
(and other devices). But time does not depend on clocks (because clocks 
are man-made device), but is created as a feature of nature.

Our aim is now NOT the measurement of time, but to find out, why and how 
nature is able to maintain this feature


...


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671355

On 7/3/2026 8:31 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Mittwoch000001, 01.07.2026 um 19:33 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 29.06.2026 11:05, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>> Well, I'm an engineer.
>>
>> Then you know that "time" is what we measure with clocks.
> 
> 
> that's nonsense, since 'is' (in the statement above) means:
> 
> the 'thing' we call 'time' would depend on clocks.
> 
> But that is absolutely untrue.


Thing we call time are: UTC, TAI,
zone times and some more. Every of them
has "time" as a part of name, so rather
no doubt that we call them this way.
You do it as well.
Is any of them  "a feature of nature"?

Time is not a feature of nature, it is a
feature of our system of thinking.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671370

Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> Am Mittwoch000001, 01.07.2026 um 19:33 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> > Den 29.06.2026 11:05, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> >> Well, I'm an engineer.
> >
> > Then you know that "time" is what we measure with clocks.
> 
> that's nonsense, since 'is' (in the statement above) means:
> 
> the 'thing' we call 'time' would depend on clocks.
> 
> But that is absolutely untrue.
> 
> That would be equivalent to:
> 'the quantity length' would depend on yardsticks.
> 
> Instead:
> we have something that we call 'time', which can be measured with clocks
> (and other devices). But time does not depend on clocks (because clocks
> are man-made device), but is created as a feature of nature.
> 
> Our aim is now NOT the measurement of time, but to find out, why and how
> nature is able to maintain this feature
> 
> ...
> 
> TH


'In the beginning, ...'

Nature
is able
to maintain
this feature..
from the very beginning.

The Sun
The Moon


'In the beginning, ...The Time.


The Heavens
The Earth


I'll explain the very Nature of it..


First, a location..with boundaries

add a little Time

and Volia!

a stinky planet
with stinky girls


WHAT'S DAT SMELL???

	
you pee out of dat thing????


Wait a minute, i lost track, where was i?


'In the beginning, ...'


you maintain this feature
by clockwise and counter clockwise
Heavens and the Earth.

Now, where is the mechanism that makes the earth go round...?

Who is winding the clock?

No, not who...What.

What's on second.









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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671371

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> > Am Mittwoch000001, 01.07.2026 um 19:33 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> > > Den 29.06.2026 11:05, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> > >> Well, I'm an engineer.
> > >
> > > Then you know that "time" is what we measure with clocks.
> >
> > that's nonsense, since 'is' (in the statement above) means:
> >
> > the 'thing' we call 'time' would depend on clocks.
> >
> > But that is absolutely untrue.
> >
> > That would be equivalent to:
> > 'the quantity length' would depend on yardsticks.
> >
> > Instead:
> > we have something that we call 'time', which can be measured with clocks
> > (and other devices). But time does not depend on clocks (because clocks
> > are man-made device), but is created as a feature of nature.
> >
> > Our aim is now NOT the measurement of time, but to find out, why and how
> > nature is able to maintain this feature
> >
> > ...
> >
> > TH
> 
> 'In the beginning, ...'
> 
> Nature
> is able
> to maintain
> this feature..
> from the very beginning.
> 
> The Sun
> The Moon
> 
> 'In the beginning, ...The Time.
> 
> The Heavens
> The Earth
> 
> I'll explain the very Nature of it..
> 
> First, a location..with boundaries
> 
> add a little Time
> 
> and Volia!
> 
> a stinky planet
> with stinky girls
> 
> WHAT'S DAT SMELL???
> 
> 
> you pee out of dat thing????
> 
> Wait a minute, i lost track, where was i?
> 
> 'In the beginning, ...'
> 
> you maintain this feature
> by clockwise and counter clockwise
> Heavens and the Earth.
> 
> Now, where is the mechanism that makes the earth go round...?
> 
> Who is winding the clock?
> 
> No, not who...What.
> 
> What's on second.

Oh, I forgot One Technical detail...

God.

'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'

God is...pre-big bang

God is proto-universe.


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671374

Am Samstag000004, 04.07.2026 um 21:21 schrieb The Starmaker:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am Mittwoch000001, 01.07.2026 um 19:33 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>> Den 29.06.2026 11:05, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>> Well, I'm an engineer.
>>>
>>> Then you know that "time" is what we measure with clocks.
>>
>> that's nonsense, since 'is' (in the statement above) means:
>>
>> the 'thing' we call 'time' would depend on clocks.
>>
>> But that is absolutely untrue.
>>
>> That would be equivalent to:
>> 'the quantity length' would depend on yardsticks.
>>
>> Instead:
>> we have something that we call 'time', which can be measured with clocks
>> (and other devices). But time does not depend on clocks (because clocks
>> are man-made device), but is created as a feature of nature.
>>
>> Our aim is now NOT the measurement of time, but to find out, why and how
>> nature is able to maintain this feature
>>
>> ...
>>
>> TH
> 
> 
> 'In the beginning, ...'
> 
> Nature
> is able
> to maintain
> this feature..
> from the very beginning.
> 
> The Sun
> The Moon
> 

Not quite:

Our solar system is just a little older than a few billion years, while 
the universe itself about three times older (allegedly).

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671377

Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> Am Samstag000004, 04.07.2026 um 21:21 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> Am Mittwoch000001, 01.07.2026 um 19:33 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> >>> Den 29.06.2026 11:05, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> >>>> Well, I'm an engineer.
> >>>
> >>> Then you know that "time" is what we measure with clocks.
> >>
> >> that's nonsense, since 'is' (in the statement above) means:
> >>
> >> the 'thing' we call 'time' would depend on clocks.
> >>
> >> But that is absolutely untrue.
> >>
> >> That would be equivalent to:
> >> 'the quantity length' would depend on yardsticks.
> >>
> >> Instead:
> >> we have something that we call 'time', which can be measured with clocks
> >> (and other devices). But time does not depend on clocks (because clocks
> >> are man-made device), but is created as a feature of nature.
> >>
> >> Our aim is now NOT the measurement of time, but to find out, why and how
> >> nature is able to maintain this feature
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> >
> > 'In the beginning, ...'
> >
> > Nature
> > is able
> > to maintain
> > this feature..
> > from the very beginning.
> >
> > The Sun
> > The Moon
> >
> 
> Not quite:
> 
> Our solar system is just a little older than a few billion years, while
> the universe itself about three times older (allegedly).
> 
> TH

The earth and the universe were both created ...at the same time.



'Science' just pretend they know the exact dates...but they are just
lying.

and then there was...light.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web