Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #666070 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-09-15 11:48 +0200 |
| Last post | 2025-09-26 08:48 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 82 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 11:48 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Jace Dubanowski <jwo@scj.pl> - 2025-09-15 11:18 +0000
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-15 14:17 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 16:14 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Richard Bukowski <iia@sirwihkw.pl> - 2025-09-15 14:59 +0000
Re: Time and sharks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-15 10:46 -0700
Re: Time and sharks Nich Majewski <wka@nwnn.pl> - 2025-09-16 11:03 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-15 16:50 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 19:16 +0200
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-15 22:10 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 22:44 +0200
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-16 10:47 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-16 12:14 +0200
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-17 20:11 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-17 21:00 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-17 19:14 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-17 21:41 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-17 19:44 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-17 21:53 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-17 19:56 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-17 22:03 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-17 20:05 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-17 22:27 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-17 20:33 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-18 07:05 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-18 08:33 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-18 12:01 +0200
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-18 14:47 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-18 15:26 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-18 15:31 +0200
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-18 22:14 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-18 22:37 +0200
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-19 15:40 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-19 15:59 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Stefhen Maslanka <nts@anhks.pl> - 2025-09-19 14:42 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-19 20:17 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-19 19:19 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-19 22:04 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-19 20:59 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-20 15:51 +0000
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-20 22:52 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Azael Christakos <aslo@aors.gr> - 2025-09-20 21:30 +0000
Re: Time and sharks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-21 12:52 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Vaugn Krakowski <ksa@nink.pl> - 2025-09-21 12:02 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-20 23:35 +0200
Re: Time and sharks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-21 12:52 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-21 15:35 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-21 15:26 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-21 19:33 +0200
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-18 14:48 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Neury Wronski <uuks@wieisrow.pl> - 2025-09-18 16:32 +0000
Re: Time and sharks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-15 10:42 -0700
Re: Time and sharks Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-09-15 21:22 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-09-15 21:23 +0200
Re: Time and sharks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-15 15:57 -0700
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-16 06:56 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-16 08:46 +0200
Re: Time and sharks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-16 12:53 -0700
Re: Time and sharks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-17 08:56 +0200
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-17 20:26 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-21 10:42 +0200
Re: Time and sharks "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-25 15:21 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-25 15:28 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-25 19:24 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-25 23:35 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-26 09:00 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 15:52 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-26 08:54 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 07:26 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-26 11:54 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 14:28 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 21:38 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-27 08:00 +0200
Re: Time and sharks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-26 23:27 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-27 08:03 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-26 23:31 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Mauro Górski <iaib@mampg.pl> - 2025-09-26 22:20 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 18:24 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-26 23:04 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-26 19:59 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Hollis Meeuwissen <iii@hsuw.nl> - 2025-09-25 18:53 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-26 08:48 +0200
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-17 22:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18662a7e6d1b65c4$44411$2486865$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666132 |
On 9/17/2025 9:56 PM, Python wrote: > Le 17/09/2025 à 21:53, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/17/2025 9:44 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:41, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/17/2025 9:14 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:00, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 9/17/2025 8:11 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>> Den 16.09.2025 12:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>>>>> On 9/16/2025 10:47 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> | 1. Can you measure "the real time"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The answer can also be simple: that depends on what, >>>>>>>> PRECISELY, you mean by "measure". Since you're >>>>>>>> to stupid to know - another answer is impossible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course even you can measure the time it takes to >>>>>>>>> travel from A to B in your car. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What I can do - may be considered as a >>>>>>>> measurement or not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In physics and engineering "time" must be measurable, >>>>>>>>> and the instrument to measure time is called a clock. >>>>>>>>> So in physics and engineering "time" is what we measure >>>>>>>>> with clocks. >>>>>>>> Ever heard of "leap seconds", poor trash? Are they >>>>>>>> measurable? >>>>>>>> When gregorian calendar was established - some >>>>>>>> days vanished. Ever heard of it? Was it measurable? >>>>>>>> Limit yourself to asserting in the name of your moronic >>>>>>>> religion, we in engineering will keep fucking >>>>>>>> you, your idiot gurus and your fellow idiots, >>>>>>>> and especially your "time dilation" idiocy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good answer! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are obviously much smarter than Einstein. >>>>>> >>>>>> I obviously am. No way a big achievement. >>>>> >>>>> You obviously aren't. Moreover you're certainly dumber than 90% of >>>>> Humanity. >>>> >>>> >>>> See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble [A.E.] >>>> to be not even consistent, >>> >>> You did nothing of that kind :-) >> >> I've pointed directly 2 denying themself [usual nonsense] > > Nope. I did :-)> >>> I refuted your silly arguments. >> >> You did nothing of that kind. > > I did :-) Nope.> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-17 20:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <B4N8HKOyvx97F0EIjWSsZpgLnNg@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666133 |
Le 17/09/2025 à 22:03, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/17/2025 9:56 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:53, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/17/2025 9:44 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:41, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 9/17/2025 9:14 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:00, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>> On 9/17/2025 8:11 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>> Den 16.09.2025 12:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>>>>>> On 9/16/2025 10:47 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> | 1. Can you measure "the real time"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The answer can also be simple: that depends on what, >>>>>>>>> PRECISELY, you mean by "measure". Since you're >>>>>>>>> to stupid to know - another answer is impossible. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Of course even you can measure the time it takes to >>>>>>>>>> travel from A to B in your car. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What I can do - may be considered as a >>>>>>>>> measurement or not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In physics and engineering "time" must be measurable, >>>>>>>>>> and the instrument to measure time is called a clock. >>>>>>>>>> So in physics and engineering "time" is what we measure >>>>>>>>>> with clocks. >>>>>>>>> Ever heard of "leap seconds", poor trash? Are they >>>>>>>>> measurable? >>>>>>>>> When gregorian calendar was established - some >>>>>>>>> days vanished. Ever heard of it? Was it measurable? >>>>>>>>> Limit yourself to asserting in the name of your moronic >>>>>>>>> religion, we in engineering will keep fucking >>>>>>>>> you, your idiot gurus and your fellow idiots, >>>>>>>>> and especially your "time dilation" idiocy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Good answer! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are obviously much smarter than Einstein. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I obviously am. No way a big achievement. >>>>>> >>>>>> You obviously aren't. Moreover you're certainly dumber than 90% of >>>>>> Humanity. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble [A.E.] >>>>> to be not even consistent, >>>> >>>> You did nothing of that kind :-) >>> >>> I've pointed directly 2 denying themself [usual nonsense] >> >> Nope. > > I did :-)> >>>> I refuted your silly arguments. >>> >>> You did nothing of that kind. >> >> I did :-) > > Nope.> >> You're so silly that you cannot be convinced of anything, I know. Anyway did you ever convince a single person that your "arguments" were right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-17 22:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18662bc420d4ca6d$2645094$2486831$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666134 |
On 9/17/2025 10:05 PM, Python wrote: > Le 17/09/2025 à 22:03, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/17/2025 9:56 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:53, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/17/2025 9:44 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:41, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 9/17/2025 9:14 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:00, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 9/17/2025 8:11 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>>> Den 16.09.2025 12:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>>>>>>> On 9/16/2025 10:47 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> | 1. Can you measure "the real time"? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The answer can also be simple: that depends on what, >>>>>>>>>> PRECISELY, you mean by "measure". Since you're >>>>>>>>>> to stupid to know - another answer is impossible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course even you can measure the time it takes to >>>>>>>>>>> travel from A to B in your car. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What I can do - may be considered as a >>>>>>>>>> measurement or not. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In physics and engineering "time" must be measurable, >>>>>>>>>>> and the instrument to measure time is called a clock. >>>>>>>>>>> So in physics and engineering "time" is what we measure >>>>>>>>>>> with clocks. >>>>>>>>>> Ever heard of "leap seconds", poor trash? Are they >>>>>>>>>> measurable? >>>>>>>>>> When gregorian calendar was established - some >>>>>>>>>> days vanished. Ever heard of it? Was it measurable? >>>>>>>>>> Limit yourself to asserting in the name of your moronic >>>>>>>>>> religion, we in engineering will keep fucking >>>>>>>>>> you, your idiot gurus and your fellow idiots, >>>>>>>>>> and especially your "time dilation" idiocy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Good answer! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are obviously much smarter than Einstein. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I obviously am. No way a big achievement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You obviously aren't. Moreover you're certainly dumber than 90% >>>>>>> of Humanity. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble [A.E.] >>>>>> to be not even consistent, >>>>> >>>>> You did nothing of that kind :-) >>>> >>>> I've pointed directly 2 denying themself [usual nonsense] >>> >>> Nope. >> >> I did :-)> >>>>> I refuted your silly arguments. >>>> >>>> You did nothing of that kind. >>> >>> I did :-) >> >> Nope.> >>> > > You're so silly that you cannot be convinced of anything, I know. > > Anyway did you ever convince a single person that your "arguments" were > right? Of course I did, poor stinker. If you didn't notice they are you wouldn't spit and slander so fiercely.> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-17 20:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jZDtu66eHVOKlH4SDBLHLjMq-CI@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666135 |
Le 17/09/2025 à 22:27, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/17/2025 10:05 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 17/09/2025 à 22:03, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/17/2025 9:56 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:53, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 9/17/2025 9:44 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:41, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>> On 9/17/2025 9:14 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:00, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2025 8:11 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Den 16.09.2025 12:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/16/2025 10:47 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> | 1. Can you measure "the real time"? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The answer can also be simple: that depends on what, >>>>>>>>>>> PRECISELY, you mean by "measure". Since you're >>>>>>>>>>> to stupid to know - another answer is impossible. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Of course even you can measure the time it takes to >>>>>>>>>>>> travel from A to B in your car. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What I can do - may be considered as a >>>>>>>>>>> measurement or not. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In physics and engineering "time" must be measurable, >>>>>>>>>>>> and the instrument to measure time is called a clock. >>>>>>>>>>>> So in physics and engineering "time" is what we measure >>>>>>>>>>>> with clocks. >>>>>>>>>>> Ever heard of "leap seconds", poor trash? Are they >>>>>>>>>>> measurable? >>>>>>>>>>> When gregorian calendar was established - some >>>>>>>>>>> days vanished. Ever heard of it? Was it measurable? >>>>>>>>>>> Limit yourself to asserting in the name of your moronic >>>>>>>>>>> religion, we in engineering will keep fucking >>>>>>>>>>> you, your idiot gurus and your fellow idiots, >>>>>>>>>>> and especially your "time dilation" idiocy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Good answer! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are obviously much smarter than Einstein. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I obviously am. No way a big achievement. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You obviously aren't. Moreover you're certainly dumber than 90% >>>>>>>> of Humanity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble [A.E.] >>>>>>> to be not even consistent, >>>>>> >>>>>> You did nothing of that kind :-) >>>>> >>>>> I've pointed directly 2 denying themself [usual nonsense] >>>> >>>> Nope. >>> >>> I did :-)> >>>>>> I refuted your silly arguments. >>>>> >>>>> You did nothing of that kind. >>>> >>>> I did :-) >>> >>> Nope.> >>>> >> >> You're so silly that you cannot be convinced of anything, I know. >> >> Anyway did you ever convince a single person that your "arguments" were >> right? > > Of course I did, poor stinker. Who? Evidence? > If you didn't > notice they are you wouldn't spit and slander > so fiercely.> I didn't notice anything of the kind, and the one spiting and slander is you, Maciej, as anyone can see. Your level of delusion is abysmal Woz. You'll die that way, I guess... Not a big deal :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-18 07:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1866480eb44a5e21$3027664$2486831$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666136 |
On 9/17/2025 10:33 PM, Python wrote: > Le 17/09/2025 à 22:27, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/17/2025 10:05 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 17/09/2025 à 22:03, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/17/2025 9:56 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:53, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 9/17/2025 9:44 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:41, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 9/17/2025 9:14 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:00, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2025 8:11 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Den 16.09.2025 12:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/16/2025 10:47 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> | 1. Can you measure "the real time"? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The answer can also be simple: that depends on what, >>>>>>>>>>>> PRECISELY, you mean by "measure". Since you're >>>>>>>>>>>> to stupid to know - another answer is impossible. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course even you can measure the time it takes to >>>>>>>>>>>>> travel from A to B in your car. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What I can do - may be considered as a >>>>>>>>>>>> measurement or not. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In physics and engineering "time" must be measurable, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and the instrument to measure time is called a clock. >>>>>>>>>>>>> So in physics and engineering "time" is what we measure >>>>>>>>>>>>> with clocks. >>>>>>>>>>>> Ever heard of "leap seconds", poor trash? Are they >>>>>>>>>>>> measurable? >>>>>>>>>>>> When gregorian calendar was established - some >>>>>>>>>>>> days vanished. Ever heard of it? Was it measurable? >>>>>>>>>>>> Limit yourself to asserting in the name of your moronic >>>>>>>>>>>> religion, we in engineering will keep fucking >>>>>>>>>>>> you, your idiot gurus and your fellow idiots, >>>>>>>>>>>> and especially your "time dilation" idiocy. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Good answer! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are obviously much smarter than Einstein. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I obviously am. No way a big achievement. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You obviously aren't. Moreover you're certainly dumber than 90% >>>>>>>>> of Humanity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble [A.E.] >>>>>>>> to be not even consistent, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You did nothing of that kind :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> I've pointed directly 2 denying themself [usual nonsense] >>>>> >>>>> Nope. >>>> >>>> I did :-)> >>>>>>> I refuted your silly arguments. >>>>>> >>>>>> You did nothing of that kind. >>>>> >>>>> I did :-) >>>> >>>> Nope.> >>>>> >>> >>> You're so silly that you cannot be convinced of anything, I know. >>> >>> Anyway did you ever convince a single person that your "arguments" >>> were right? >> >> Of course I did, poor stinker. > > Who? Evidence? You. If you didn't notice they are you wouldn't spit and slander so fiercely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-18 08:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <DMsfg2kMTYcdIe6kXyg-cVufKyA@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666137 |
Le 18/09/2025 à 07:05, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/17/2025 10:33 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 17/09/2025 à 22:27, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/17/2025 10:05 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 22:03, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 9/17/2025 9:56 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:53, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>> On 9/17/2025 9:44 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:41, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2025 9:14 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:00, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2025 8:11 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Den 16.09.2025 12:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/16/2025 10:47 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 1. Can you measure "the real time"? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer can also be simple: that depends on what, >>>>>>>>>>>>> PRECISELY, you mean by "measure". Since you're >>>>>>>>>>>>> to stupid to know - another answer is impossible. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course even you can measure the time it takes to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel from A to B in your car. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What I can do - may be considered as a >>>>>>>>>>>>> measurement or not. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In physics and engineering "time" must be measurable, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the instrument to measure time is called a clock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in physics and engineering "time" is what we measure >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with clocks. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ever heard of "leap seconds", poor trash? Are they >>>>>>>>>>>>> measurable? >>>>>>>>>>>>> When gregorian calendar was established - some >>>>>>>>>>>>> days vanished. Ever heard of it? Was it measurable? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Limit yourself to asserting in the name of your moronic >>>>>>>>>>>>> religion, we in engineering will keep fucking >>>>>>>>>>>>> you, your idiot gurus and your fellow idiots, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and especially your "time dilation" idiocy. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Good answer! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are obviously much smarter than Einstein. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I obviously am. No way a big achievement. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You obviously aren't. Moreover you're certainly dumber than 90% >>>>>>>>>> of Humanity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble [A.E.] >>>>>>>>> to be not even consistent, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You did nothing of that kind :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've pointed directly 2 denying themself [usual nonsense] >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. >>>>> >>>>> I did :-)> >>>>>>>> I refuted your silly arguments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You did nothing of that kind. >>>>>> >>>>>> I did :-) >>>>> >>>>> Nope.> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> You're so silly that you cannot be convinced of anything, I know. >>>> >>>> Anyway did you ever convince a single person that your "arguments" >>>> were right? >>> >>> Of course I did, poor stinker. >> >> Who? Evidence? > > You. The only things you've convinced me of, Maciej, is that you are un insufferable idiot and a despicable human being.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-18 12:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186658318b3085ae$3087335$2486831$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666138 |
On 9/18/2025 10:33 AM, Python wrote: > Le 18/09/2025 à 07:05, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/17/2025 10:33 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 17/09/2025 à 22:27, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/17/2025 10:05 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 22:03, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 9/17/2025 9:56 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:53, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 9/17/2025 9:44 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:41, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2025 9:14 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 21:00, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2025 8:11 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Den 16.09.2025 12:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/16/2025 10:47 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 1. Can you measure "the real time"? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer can also be simple: that depends on what, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRECISELY, you mean by "measure". Since you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to stupid to know - another answer is impossible. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course even you can measure the time it takes to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel from A to B in your car. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I can do - may be considered as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurement or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In physics and engineering "time" must be measurable, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the instrument to measure time is called a clock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in physics and engineering "time" is what we measure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with clocks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ever heard of "leap seconds", poor trash? Are they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurable? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When gregorian calendar was established - some >>>>>>>>>>>>>> days vanished. Ever heard of it? Was it measurable? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Limit yourself to asserting in the name of your moronic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion, we in engineering will keep fucking >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you, your idiot gurus and your fellow idiots, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and especially your "time dilation" idiocy. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Good answer! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are obviously much smarter than Einstein. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I obviously am. No way a big achievement. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You obviously aren't. Moreover you're certainly dumber than >>>>>>>>>>> 90% of Humanity. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble [A.E.] >>>>>>>>>> to be not even consistent, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You did nothing of that kind :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've pointed directly 2 denying themself [usual nonsense] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>> >>>>>> I did :-)> >>>>>>>>> I refuted your silly arguments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You did nothing of that kind. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I did :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope.> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You're so silly that you cannot be convinced of anything, I know. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway did you ever convince a single person that your "arguments" >>>>> were right? >>>> >>>> Of course I did, poor stinker. >>> >>> Who? Evidence? >> >> You. > > The only things you've convinced me of, Maciej, is that you are un > insufferable idiot and a despicable human being. You're a fanatic piece of shit trained to spit and slander the enemies of your moronic religion. More right they are - more hatred in your barking. Simple. > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-18 14:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <gaTyQ.27308$Ft95.18227@fx16.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666139 |
Den 18.09.2025 12:01, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 9/18/2025 10:33 AM, Python wrote: >> Le 18/09/2025 à 07:05, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/17/2025 10:33 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 22:27, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>> On 9/17/2025 10:05 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway did you ever convince a single person that your "arguments" >>>>>> were right? >>>>> >>>>> Of course I did, poor stinker. >>>> >>>> Who? Evidence? >>> >>> You. >> >> The only things you've convinced me of, Maciej, is that you are un >> insufferable idiot and a despicable human being. > > You're a fanatic piece of shit trained > to spit and slander the enemies of > your moronic religion. More right they > are - more hatred in your barking. > Simple. Spitting and slandering in frustration because you know that you have never convinced anybody of anything, Maciej? :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-18 15:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1866636441875920$3183841$2486831$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666140 |
On 9/18/2025 2:47 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 18.09.2025 12:01, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 9/18/2025 10:33 AM, Python wrote: >>> Le 18/09/2025 à 07:05, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/17/2025 10:33 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 22:27, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 9/17/2025 10:05 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway did you ever convince a single person that your >>>>>>> "arguments" were right? >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course I did, poor stinker. >>>>> >>>>> Who? Evidence? >>>> >>>> You. >>> >>> The only things you've convinced me of, Maciej, is that you are un >>> insufferable idiot and a despicable human being. >> >> You're a fanatic piece of shit trained >> to spit and slander the enemies of >> your moronic religion. More right they >> are - more hatred in your barking. >> Simple. > > Spitting and slandering in frustration because you know that > you have never convinced anybody of anything, Maciej? :-D Talking to scum like you or the other piece of shit I have to partially descend to your level, but it's only partial. I'm leaving slandering to you. And I've convinced both of you to many things - you're not repeating many of your errors anymore. Many other still remain, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-18 15:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186663a944203697$3183842$2486831$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666140 |
On 9/18/2025 2:47 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 18.09.2025 12:01, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 9/18/2025 10:33 AM, Python wrote: >>> Le 18/09/2025 à 07:05, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/17/2025 10:33 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 17/09/2025 à 22:27, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 9/17/2025 10:05 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway did you ever convince a single person that your "arguments" were right? >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course I did, poor stinker. >>>>> >>>>> Who? Evidence? >>>> >>>> You. >>> >>> The only things you've convinced me of, Maciej, is that you are un insufferable idiot and a despicable human being. >> >> You're a fanatic piece of shit trained >> to spit and slander the enemies of >> your moronic religion. More right they >> are - more hatred in your barking. >> Simple. > > Spitting and slandering in frustration because you know that > you have never convinced anybody of anything, Maciej? 😂 Talking to scum like you or the other piece of shit I have to partially descend to your level, but it's only partial. I'm leaving slandering to you. And I've convinced both of you to many things - you're not repeating many of your errors anymore. Many other still remain, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-18 22:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <PIZyQ.3$Fa19.2@fx06.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666143 |
Den 18.09.2025 15:31, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > And I've convinced both of you to many > things - you're not repeating many of > your errors anymore. Can you tell me which of my following statements you have convinced me are wrong? 30.6.2025| If we have a clock on the ground, which is built according | to the SI definition of second, then this clock will | measure a mean solar day to last 84600 seconds. | | If we put the _same_ clock in GPS orbit, then this clock will | measure a mean solar day to last 84600.000037771 seconds. | | If we put the _same_ clock in Galileo orbit, then this clock will | measure a mean solar day to last 84600.000039946 seconds. | | If we put the _same_ clock in GLONASS orbit, then this clock will | measure a mean solar day to last 84600.000036870 seconds. | | This isn't theory, it is real, practical measurement made in | the real world. It is proved every day by the simple fact | that all three GNSS systems work. 27.8.2035| It is true that all atomic clocks in the TAI network | have the SI-definition built in. | https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Atomic_Time | "The TAI second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods | of the radiation corresponding to the transition | between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of | the Cesium 133 atom. | " | That means that a TAI-second is _exactly_ equal to the SI-definition. | | But not even atomic clocks are infinitely precise. | The precision of the TAI clocks are probably in the order | of 1e-15 (or better), which means that during one year | the clock may be 30 ns (or less) ahead or behind the correct time. | This is not good enough as base for the UTC. | | So a TAI-second is the average of 450+ atomic clocks, and will | be very close to the second defined by SI. 28.8.2025| All clocks consists of an oscillator and a counter. | | In your wristwatch the oscillator is probably based | on a quartz crystal. If the frequency of this | quartz crystal oscillator is - say 32.768 kHz, | you need a modulo 32768 counter to make it tick | once every second. | | In an atomic clock, the oscillator is the radiation | corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine | energy levels in an an atom. If the the atom is Cs-133, | then the frequency of this oscillator is 9192631770 Hz | by definition. So if you have a modulo 9192631770 counter | you will get one tick every second. | | Both these clocks are running according to the SI-definition, | advancing one SI second each second, the difference is the precision. | The quartz clock can be expected to be a few seconds wrong | after a year, while the atomic clock can be expected to be | few ns (or less) wrong after a year. | | Clocks, whether they are quartz clocks or atomic clocks, | will always and everywhere run at the same rate. | They will tick once each second whether they are at the ground | or in a GPS satellite. 31.8.2025| GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of | EM-radiation by a massive object, observed from the Earth, is: | | θ = (2·GM/(b·c²))·(1 + cosφ) (1) | | Where: | b = impact parameter, | ray's closest approach to centre of massive object | φ = angle between light source and centre of massive object | as observed from the Earth | c = speed of light in vacuum | G = Gravitational constant | M = mass of massive object | | The "massive object" may be the Sun, a galaxy, a quasar or a black hole. | | The "light source" may be a star or a galaxy. | | Experimental evidence: | https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf | https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf | https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf | https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf | https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf | | GR's prediction of gravitational deflection of | EM-radiation is so thoroughly experimentally confirmed | that it can be considered a fact. 4.9.2025| However, what GR has defined is a geodetic line. | https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf | See page 28 | 10. The Equation of the Geodetic Line. The Motion of a Particle | | Loosely: a geodetic line is the path of a moving particle. | or the CG of a body. | | A geodetic line is a line in spacetime. | But this line has a spatial component, and a temporal component. | If you throw a clock, the curved path you see is | the spatial component. The temporal component is the proper | time measured by the clock from your hand to the ground. 6.9.2025| In gravitational lensing the light source is behind | the massive object, In this case GR predicts | that the deflection of light observed from the Earth is: | θ = (4·GM/(b·c²)) | Where: | b = impact parameter, | ray's closest approach to centre of massive object | c = speed of light in vacuum | G = Gravitational constant | M = mass of massive object | | This is the only gravitational deflection of light | that will give gravitational lensing as observed: | https://tinyurl.com/533fynfb 7.9.2025| I will yet again shove the proof that GR predicts | gravitational deflection into your face. | | https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf | In chapter | 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational | Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of | a Planetary Orbit | | We find on page 69; | "We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing | by a mass M at the distance Δ. If we choose the system of | co-ordinates in agreement with the accompanying Figure 24.1, | the total bending of the ray (calculated positively if concave | towards the origin) is given in sufficient approximation by | . . . . | Carrying out the calculation, this gives B = 2α/Δ = κM/2πΔ | . . . . | According to this, a ray of light going past the sun | undergoes a deflexion of 1.7" | " 11.9.2025 | These papers falsify your hypothesis that | Robert Vivian Pound is a brainwashed religious maniac: | | https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf | https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Snider.pdf | | You haven't read any paper by Pound, have you? | You know you wouldn't understand them, don't you? | And any paper you don't understand must be written by | a brainwashed religious maniac, right? 😂 11.9.2025| Einstein knew something which you don't. | The Pythagorean Theorem is true by definition (*). | This is mathematics, not physics. | | That a famous physicist "has announced | the Pythagorean Theorem false" can only be claimed | by a person who is so ignorant of basic mathematics | that he doesn't know that in mathematics theorems | are always true. | "Experimental evidence" has no place in mathematics. | | (*) A mathematical theorem is proven true by logical | derivation from a set of axioms which are true | by definition. 14.9.2035| This experiment is performed in the real world, | See: | https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf | | It is really two experiment: | | Experiment 1: | Clock A and clock B are co-located on the ground. | Clock A stays stationary on the ground while clock B is put on | an aeroplane and flown around the Earth in the westwards direction. | When the clocks again are co-located the clocks are compared. | Result: | Proper time of clock B is 273 ns more than the proper time of clock A- | | Experiment 2: | Clock A and clock C are co-located on the ground. | Clock A stays stationary on the ground while clock C is put on | an aeroplane and flown around the Earth in the eastwards direction. | When the clocks again are co-located the clocks are compared. | Result: | Proper time of clock C is 59 ns less than the proper time of clock A- | | You can see the principle of the calculation here: | (Well, not you, but potential lurkers can) | https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-18 22:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18667aee5de9bed9$50003$2497048$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666151 |
On 9/18/2025 10:14 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 18.09.2025 15:31, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> And I've convinced both of you to many >> things - you're not repeating many of >> your errors anymore. > > Can you tell me which of my following > statements you have convinced me are wrong? That GPS time is the same as TAI, poor trash. And some others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-19 15:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <T1dzQ.10701$E8eb.8606@fx11.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666153 |
Den 18.09.2025 22:37, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 9/18/2025 10:14 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 18.09.2025 15:31, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> And I've convinced both of you to many >>> things - you're not repeating many of >>> your errors anymore. >> >> Can you tell me which of my following >> statements you have convinced me are wrong? > > That GPS time is the same as TAI, poor trash. > And some others. > It is true that I said: "GPS-time is the time sent to the receiver by the SV (space vehicle). It is the same as TAI." The correct is: GPS-time is _always_ the same as TAI - 19 seconds. The important point is that GPS-time is _not_ updated with leap seconds like UTC is. This has nothing to do with Einstein. -------------------- So can you tell me which of my statements about TAI, SI or Einstein's predictions you have convinced me are wrong? I am sure that you can find more typos, but that doesn't count I mean statements like these: 30.6.2025 | If we have a clock on the ground, which is built according | to the SI definition of second, then this clock will | measure a mean solar day to last 84600 seconds. | | If we put the _same_ clock in GPS orbit, then this clock will | measure a mean solar day to last 84600.000037771 seconds. | | If we put the _same_ clock in Galileo orbit, then this clock will | measure a mean solar day to last 84600.000039946 seconds. | | If we put the _same_ clock in GLONASS orbit, then this clock will | measure a mean solar day to last 84600.000036870 seconds. | | This isn't theory, it is real, practical measurement made in | the real world. It is proved every day by the simple fact | that all three GNSS systems work. 27.8.2035 | It is true that all atomic clocks in the TAI network | have the SI-definition built in. | https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Atomic_Time | "The TAI second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods | of the radiation corresponding to the transition | between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of | the Cesium 133 atom. | " | That means that a TAI-second is _exactly_ equal to the SI-definition. | | But not even atomic clocks are infinitely precise. | The precision of the TAI clocks are probably in the order | of 1e-15 (or better), which means that during one year | the clock may be 30 ns (or less) ahead or behind the correct time. | This is not good enough as base for the UTC. | | So a TAI-second is the average of 450+ atomic clocks, and will | be very close to the second defined by SI. 28.8.2025 | All clocks consists of an oscillator and a counter. | | In your wristwatch the oscillator is probably based | on a quartz crystal. If the frequency of this | quartz crystal oscillator is - say 32.768 kHz, | you need a modulo 32768 counter to make it tick | once every second. | | In an atomic clock, the oscillator is the radiation | corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine | energy levels in an an atom. If the the atom is Cs-133, | then the frequency of this oscillator is 9192631770 Hz | by definition. So if you have a modulo 9192631770 counter | you will get one tick every second. | | Both these clocks are running according to the SI-definition, | advancing one SI second each second, the difference is the precision. | The quartz clock can be expected to be a few seconds wrong | after a year, while the atomic clock can be expected to be | few ns (or less) wrong after a year. | | Clocks, whether they are quartz clocks or atomic clocks, | will always and everywhere run at the same rate. | They will tick once each second whether they are at the ground | or in a GPS satellite. 31.8.2025 | GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of | EM-radiation by a massive object, observed from the Earth, is: | | θ = (2·GM/(b·c²))·(1 + cosφ) (1) | | Where: | b = impact parameter, | ray's closest approach to centre of massive object | φ = angle between light source and centre of massive object | as observed from the Earth | c = speed of light in vacuum | G = Gravitational constant | M = mass of massive object | | The "massive object" may be the Sun, a galaxy, | a quasar or a black hole. | | The "light source" may be a star or a galaxy. | | Experimental evidence: | https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf | https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf | https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf | https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf | https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf | | GR's prediction of gravitational deflection of | EM-radiation is so thoroughly experimentally confirmed | that it can be considered a fact. 4.9.2025 | However, what GR has defined is a geodetic line. | https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf | See page 28 | 10. The Equation of the Geodetic Line. The Motion of a Particle | | Loosely: a geodetic line is the path of a moving particle. | or the CG of a body. | | A geodetic line is a line in spacetime. | But this line has a spatial component, and a temporal component. | If you throw a clock, the curved path you see is | the spatial component. The temporal component is the proper | time measured by the clock from your hand to the ground. 6.9.2025 | In gravitational lensing the light source is behind | the massive object, In this case GR predicts | that the deflection of light observed from the Earth is: | θ = (4·GM/(b·c²)) | Where: | b = impact parameter, | ray's closest approach to centre of massive object | c = speed of light in vacuum | G = Gravitational constant | M = mass of massive object | | This is the only gravitational deflection of light | that will give gravitational lensing as observed: | https://tinyurl.com/533fynfb 7.9.2025 | I will yet again shove the proof that GR predicts | gravitational deflection into your face. | | https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf | In chapter | 24.Behaviour of Rods and Clocks in the Static Gravitational | Field. Bending of Light-rays. Motion of the Perihelion of | a Planetary Orbit | | We find on page 69; | "We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing | by a mass M at the distance Δ. If we choose the system of | co-ordinates in agreement with the accompanying Figure 24.1, | the total bending of the ray (calculated positively if concave | towards the origin) is given in sufficient approximation by | . . . . | Carrying out the calculation, this gives B = 2α/Δ = κM/2πΔ | . . . . | According to this, a ray of light going past the sun | undergoes a deflexion of 1.7" | " 11.9.2025 | These papers falsify your hypothesis that | Robert Vivian Pound is a brainwashed religious maniac: | | https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf | https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Snider.pdf | | You haven't read any paper by Pound, have you? | You know you wouldn't understand them, don't you? | And any paper you don't understand must be written by | a brainwashed religious maniac, right? 😂 11.9.2025| Einstein knew something which you don't. | The Pythagorean Theorem is true by definition (*). | This is mathematics, not physics. | | That a famous physicist "has announced | the Pythagorean Theorem false" can only be claimed | by a person who is so ignorant of basic mathematics | that he doesn't know that in mathematics theorems | are always true. | "Experimental evidence" has no place in mathematics. | | (*) A mathematical theorem is proven true by logical | derivation from a set of axioms which are true | by definition. 14.9.2035 | This experiment is performed in the real world, | See: | https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf | | It is really two experiment: | | Experiment 1: | Clock A and clock B are co-located on the ground. | Clock A stays stationary on the ground while clock B is put on | an aeroplane and flown around the Earth in the westwards direction. | When the clocks again are co-located the clocks are compared. | Result: | Proper time of clock B is 273 ns more than the proper time of clock A- | | Experiment 2: | Clock A and clock C are co-located on the ground. | Clock A stays stationary on the ground while clock C is put on | an aeroplane and flown around the Earth in the eastwards direction. | When the clocks again are co-located the clocks are compared. | Result: | Proper time of clock C is 59 ns less than the proper time of clock A- | | You can see the principle of the calculation here: | (Well, not you, but potential lurkers can) | https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-19 15:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1866b3c0acd38eda$879851$2996671$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666167 |
On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 18.09.2025 22:37, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 9/18/2025 10:14 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 18.09.2025 15:31, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> And I've convinced both of you to many >>>> things - you're not repeating many of >>>> your errors anymore. >>> >>> Can you tell me which of my following >>> statements you have convinced me are wrong? >> >> That GPS time is the same as TAI, poor trash. >> And some others. >> > > It is true that I said: > "GPS-time is the time sent to the receiver by the SV (space vehicle). > It is the same as TAI." > The correct is: > GPS-time is _always_ the same as TAI - 19 seconds. > > The important point is that GPS-time is _not_ updated > with leap seconds like UTC is. It is true that you mixed them all and insisted that it's UTC which is ruling GPS for a long time. You never had any clue about any subject you're babbling about, still I managed to correct some of your minor errors. As for the major ones - you're a stubborn in your ignorance idiot dying hard for them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefhen Maslanka <nts@anhks.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-19 14:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ajq4k$i56i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666168 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> The important point is that GPS-time is _not_ updated with leap seconds >> like UTC is. > > It is true that you mixed them all and insisted that it's UTC which is > ruling GPS for a long time. You never had any clue about any subject > you're babbling about, still I managed to correct some of your minor > errors. As for the major ones - you're a stubborn in your ignorance > idiot dying hard for them. you can't avoid farts flowing through the universe, and therefore you will think clocks synchronized, but you are not, and will never know, you stupid kike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-19 20:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1866c1da37123752$142328$2497048$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666169 |
On 9/19/2025 4:42 PM, Stefhen Maslanka wrote: > Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >> On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> The important point is that GPS-time is _not_ updated with leap seconds >>> like UTC is. >> >> It is true that you mixed them all and insisted that it's UTC which is >> ruling GPS for a long time. You never had any clue about any subject >> you're babbling about, still I managed to correct some of your minor >> errors. As for the major ones - you're a stubborn in your ignorance >> idiot dying hard for them. > > you can't avoid farts flowing through the universe, and therefore you will > think clocks synchronized, but you are not, and will never know, you > stupid kike. You will think I don't know, but I will, and you just don't know. "Knowledge" is a complicated term, it definitely can surprise you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-19 19:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kX-hzpnHeXzoNgDbCBn36Yemghg@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666176 |
Le 19/09/2025 à 20:17, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/19/2025 4:42 PM, Stefhen Maslanka wrote: >> Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >>> On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> The important point is that GPS-time is _not_ updated with leap seconds >>>> like UTC is. >>> >>> It is true that you mixed them all and insisted that it's UTC which is >>> ruling GPS for a long time. You never had any clue about any subject >>> you're babbling about, still I managed to correct some of your minor >>> errors. As for the major ones - you're a stubborn in your ignorance >>> idiot dying hard for them. >> >> you can't avoid farts flowing through the universe, and therefore you will >> think clocks synchronized, but you are not, and will never know, you >> stupid kike. > > You will think I don't know, but I will, and you > just don't know. "Knowledge" is a complicated term, > it definitely can surprise you. This the best you can tonight Woz ? Sheets and nurses will suffer...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-19 22:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1866c7af41774ca2$3610609$2486831$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666179 |
On 9/19/2025 9:19 PM, Python wrote: > Le 19/09/2025 à 20:17, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/19/2025 4:42 PM, Stefhen Maslanka wrote: >>> Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> The important point is that GPS-time is _not_ updated with leap >>>>> seconds >>>>> like UTC is. >>>> >>>> It is true that you mixed them all and insisted that it's UTC which is >>>> ruling GPS for a long time. You never had any clue about any subject >>>> you're babbling about, still I managed to correct some of your minor >>>> errors. As for the major ones - you're a stubborn in your ignorance >>>> idiot dying hard for them. >>> >>> you can't avoid farts flowing through the universe, and therefore you >>> will >>> think clocks synchronized, but you are not, and will never know, you >>> stupid kike. >> >> You will think I don't know, but I will, and you >> just don't know. "Knowledge" is a complicated term, >> it definitely can surprise you. > > This the best you can tonight Woz ? Best or not, I can this tonight, Pyt. > Sheets and nurses will suffer... slander noun [ C or U ] uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or the making of such a statement: Or maybe libel noun [ C or U ] uk /ˈlaɪ.bəl/ us /ˈlaɪ.bəl/ a piece of writing that contains bad and false things about a person:
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-19 20:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r0YBnqCIv4EZqqXj5_KbGq9NAvM@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666183 |
Le 19/09/2025 à 22:04, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/19/2025 9:19 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 19/09/2025 à 20:17, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/19/2025 4:42 PM, Stefhen Maslanka wrote: >>>> Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>> The important point is that GPS-time is _not_ updated with leap >>>>>> seconds >>>>>> like UTC is. >>>>> >>>>> It is true that you mixed them all and insisted that it's UTC which is >>>>> ruling GPS for a long time. You never had any clue about any subject >>>>> you're babbling about, still I managed to correct some of your minor >>>>> errors. As for the major ones - you're a stubborn in your ignorance >>>>> idiot dying hard for them. >>>> >>>> you can't avoid farts flowing through the universe, and therefore you >>>> will >>>> think clocks synchronized, but you are not, and will never know, you >>>> stupid kike. >>> >>> You will think I don't know, but I will, and you >>> just don't know. "Knowledge" is a complicated term, >>> it definitely can surprise you. >> >> This the best you can tonight Woz ? > > Best or not, I can this tonight, Pyt. > >> Sheets and nurses will suffer... > > slander > noun [ C or U ] > uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ > a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or > the making of such a statement: > > Or maybe > libel > noun [ C or U ] > uk /ˈlaɪ.bəl/ us /ˈlaɪ.bəl/ > a piece of writing that contains bad and false things about a person:
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-20 15:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Mg5vofcMc7vSy5CdaEZDLxs-zZA@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666184 |
Le 19/09/2025 à 22:59, Python a écrit : > Le 19/09/2025 à 22:04, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/19/2025 9:19 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 19/09/2025 à 20:17, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/19/2025 4:42 PM, Stefhen Maslanka wrote: >>>>> Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>> The important point is that GPS-time is _not_ updated with leap >>>>>>> seconds >>>>>>> like UTC is. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is true that you mixed them all and insisted that it's UTC which is >>>>>> ruling GPS for a long time. You never had any clue about any subject >>>>>> you're babbling about, still I managed to correct some of your minor >>>>>> errors. As for the major ones - you're a stubborn in your ignorance >>>>>> idiot dying hard for them. >>>>> >>>>> you can't avoid farts flowing through the universe, and therefore you >>>>> will >>>>> think clocks synchronized, but you are not, and will never know, you >>>>> stupid kike. >>>> >>>> You will think I don't know, but I will, and you >>>> just don't know. "Knowledge" is a complicated term, >>>> it definitely can surprise you. >>> >>> This the best you can tonight Woz ? >> >> Best or not, I can this tonight, Pyt. >> >>> Sheets and nurses will suffer... >> >> slander >> noun [ C or U ] >> uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/ >> a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or >> the making of such a statement: >> >> Or maybe >> libel >> noun [ C or U ] >> uk /ˈlaɪ.bəl/ us /ˈlaɪ.bəl/ >> a piece of writing that contains bad and false things about a person: Et c'est tellement vrai. Moins tu parles, plus c'est vrai. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web