Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614971 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-10 20:49 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-14 16:01 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 64 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 20:49 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-11 12:26 +0200
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 03:39 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-12 07:57 +0200
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 23:12 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Miguel Sfakianos <iasi@ikmikksk.gn> - 2023-07-12 10:15 +0000
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 03:46 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Mickeal Tselios <stii@imklkkol.eo> - 2023-07-12 11:47 +0000
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-13 09:33 -0400
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Kodi Blades <aeeo@biikksek.is> - 2023-07-13 14:21 +0000
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-12 21:57 +1000
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 05:03 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-12 23:24 -0400
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 22:29 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-13 09:40 -0400
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 07:52 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Curtiss Strilakos <scss@urriourr.os> - 2023-07-13 17:42 +0000
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-14 07:13 +0200
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 22:16 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-14 15:07 -0400
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 12:28 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-14 18:46 -0400
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 16:00 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-15 06:46 +0200
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 22:14 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-16 07:01 +0200
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 22:04 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-16 08:30 +0200
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 00:57 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-17 07:01 +0200
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 23:58 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-18 08:04 +0200
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 23:41 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-19 07:42 +0200
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 22:52 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-20 07:43 +0200
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 23:13 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru 💩💩💩💩💩💩 <urma@isuarmsa.rr> - 2023-07-20 08:24 +0000
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 01:27 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Layne Jatzkovsky <sont@vaastvol.ea> - 2023-07-20 09:03 +0000
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-20 10:48 -0400
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 13:10 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-21 06:50 +0200
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-23 14:26 -0400
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-24 08:22 +0200
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 23:37 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-25 07:21 +0200
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 22:48 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-26 09:17 +0200
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 00:49 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-28 07:30 +0200
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Paul Awtandiloff <wnft@ifawllfo.lo> - 2023-07-20 20:44 +0000
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 17:15 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Bruce Zhigunov <iguu@uuznzczu.ui> - 2023-07-21 13:27 +0000
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-22 14:36 -0400
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Jona Babakov <ooba@jntaajta.aa> - 2023-07-22 20:25 +0000
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Augusta Prigorodov <rotu@popugtuo.io> - 2023-07-23 00:56 +0000
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-23 08:35 +0200
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 00:03 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Kip Mochanovsky <kcva@pckohooy.kk> - 2023-07-23 12:31 +0000
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 01:33 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Webster Mulatov <oeas@wltmrwrm.va> - 2023-07-20 09:49 +0000
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 13:40 -0700
Re: Inconsistent prediction of yhe physics of your idiot guru Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 16:01 -0700
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 12:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4635a4af-4e17-42be-83b6-ed41482ea6e2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615289 |
On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 21:07:42 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 7/14/2023 1:16 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:12:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 13.07.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Volney: > >> > >>>>> The definition of the second has no bearing on special relativity > >>>>> because the definition of the second is not used in the special > >>>>> relativity papers. > >>>> > >>>> But it has bearing on the physics of your idiot guru and his minions > >>>> because it was used in the physics of your idiot guru and his > >>>> minions. > >>> > >>> No, it is just time. No units referenced or used in the SR papers. > > >> No, actually Einstein used two numerical values with a unit in 'On the > >> electrodynamics of moving bodies': > >> > >> 1 cm > >> 1 dyne > >> > >> (Both in the same line) > >> > >> No other values with a unit were mentioned. > > > > But "a clock" is mentioned there, isn't it? > > What is a clock? > What units did the clock use, janitor? State the units used in the > paper, don't say "people back then used time units defined as..." Kiss my ass, stupid Mike - you won't command me what to say or not. And people back then used time units defined as. So was your idiot guru and whole of his moronic physics. > The best you can do is the natural units where c=1. Nobody serious, fortunately. is sharing this mad opinion of some brainwashed idiots like you. So, - if someone asked your idiot guru "Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt solar system is measuring the length of solar day. What is the result"? - the answer would be ...?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 18:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u8sj8k$54sl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #615293 |
On 7/14/2023 3:28 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 21:07:42 UTC+2, Volney wrote: >> On 7/14/2023 1:16 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >>> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:12:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 13.07.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Volney: >>>> >>>>>>> The definition of the second has no bearing on special relativity >>>>>>> because the definition of the second is not used in the special >>>>>>> relativity papers. >>>>>> >>>>>> But it has bearing on the physics of your idiot guru and his minions >>>>>> because it was used in the physics of your idiot guru and his >>>>>> minions. >>>>> >>>>> No, it is just time. No units referenced or used in the SR papers. >> >>>> No, actually Einstein used two numerical values with a unit in 'On the >>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies': >>>> >>>> 1 cm >>>> 1 dyne >>>> >>>> (Both in the same line) >>>> >>>> No other values with a unit were mentioned. >>> >>> But "a clock" is mentioned there, isn't it? >>> What is a clock? >> What units did the clock use, janitor? State the units used in the >> paper, don't say "people back then used time units defined as..." > > Kiss my ass, stupid Mike - you won't command me what to say > or not. So you admit that there aren't any units defined for the clock. It just measures time. >> The best you can do is the natural units where c=1. > > Nobody serious, fortunately. Except scientists. > is sharing this mad > opinion of some brainwashed idiots like you. Are you saying all scientists have this "mad opinion" and are "brainwashed idiots"? Probably. > So, - if someone asked your idiot guru > "Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt > solar system is measuring the length > of solar day. What is the result"? > - the answer would be ...? You didn't specify any units, nor the relative direction of the observer (which defines how to account for the relativistic Doppler Effect). >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 16:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2aa433e-8fc7-4ef0-836e-5a7c0cc36358n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615322 |
On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 00:46:48 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 7/14/2023 3:28 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 21:07:42 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/14/2023 1:16 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > >>> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:12:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>> Am 13.07.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Volney: > >>>> > >>>>>>> The definition of the second has no bearing on special relativity > >>>>>>> because the definition of the second is not used in the special > >>>>>>> relativity papers. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But it has bearing on the physics of your idiot guru and his minions > >>>>>> because it was used in the physics of your idiot guru and his > >>>>>> minions. > >>>>> > >>>>> No, it is just time. No units referenced or used in the SR papers. > >> > >>>> No, actually Einstein used two numerical values with a unit in 'On the > >>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies': > >>>> > >>>> 1 cm > >>>> 1 dyne > >>>> > >>>> (Both in the same line) > >>>> > >>>> No other values with a unit were mentioned. > >>> > >>> But "a clock" is mentioned there, isn't it? > >>> What is a clock? > >> What units did the clock use, janitor? State the units used in the > >> paper, don't say "people back then used time units defined as..." > > > > Kiss my ass, stupid Mike - you won't command me what to say > > or not. > So you admit that there aren't any units defined for the clock. I didn't. But now I do. Your idiot guru was, of course, too stupid for that. It just > measures time. > >> The best you can do is the natural units where c=1. > > > > Nobody serious, fortunately. > Except scientists. 1)Except physicists, only 2)They're not "somebody serious" 3)even them are not stupid enough to do that for real. > Are you saying all scientists have this "mad opinion" and are > "brainwashed idiots"? Not all scientists, but all the physicists for sure. And, as said, even most of them are not THAT stupid. > > So, - if someone asked your idiot guru > > "Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt > > solar system is measuring the length > > of solar day. What is the result"? > > - the answer would be ...? > You didn't specify any units So - no answer for the question from your idiot guru. Right, stupid Mike?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 06:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <khemj5F44fcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615222 |
Am 14.07.2023 um 07:16 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:12:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 13.07.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Volney: >> >>>>> The definition of the second has no bearing on special relativity >>>>> because the definition of the second is not used in the special >>>>> relativity papers. >>>> >>>> But it has bearing on the physics of your idiot guru and his minions >>>> because it was used in the physics of your idiot guru and his >>>> minions. >>> >>> No, it is just time. No units referenced or used in the SR papers. >> No, actually Einstein used two numerical values with a unit in 'On the >> electrodynamics of moving bodies': >> >> 1 cm >> 1 dyne >> >> (Both in the same line) >> >> No other values with a unit were mentioned. > > But "a clock" is mentioned there, isn't it? > What is a clock? > Einstein wrote actually about his watch. A watch is a tiny machine, wich counts rotations of a tiny rotor and shows the result of that counting in a human-readable form. But that watch does not operate by using units of any kind. The units stem from your interpretation of the signs on the watch face and the movements of the hands. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 22:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3b35ec93-da89-41ee-a191-a39457be0972n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615356 |
On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 06:45:31 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 14.07.2023 um 07:16 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:12:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 13.07.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Volney: > >> > >>>>> The definition of the second has no bearing on special relativity > >>>>> because the definition of the second is not used in the special > >>>>> relativity papers. > >>>> > >>>> But it has bearing on the physics of your idiot guru and his minions > >>>> because it was used in the physics of your idiot guru and his > >>>> minions. > >>> > >>> No, it is just time. No units referenced or used in the SR papers. > >> No, actually Einstein used two numerical values with a unit in 'On the > >> electrodynamics of moving bodies': > >> > >> 1 cm > >> 1 dyne > >> > >> (Both in the same line) > >> > >> No other values with a unit were mentioned. > > > > But "a clock" is mentioned there, isn't it? > > What is a clock? > > > Einstein wrote actually about his watch. A watch is a tiny machine, wich > counts rotations of a tiny rotor and shows the result of that counting > in a human-readable form. No. What you describe is a "stopwatch". such device is a bit similiar to a clock and can be considered as a special case of a clock. But it's not quite a clock and has even a different name. > > But that watch does not operate by using units of any kind. Even a stopwatch does. > > The units stem from your interpretation of the signs on the watch face > and the movements of the hands. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 07:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <khhbroFh1mjU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615357 |
Am 15.07.2023 um 07:14 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 06:45:31 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 14.07.2023 um 07:16 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:12:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 13.07.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Volney: >>>> >>>>>>> The definition of the second has no bearing on special relativity >>>>>>> because the definition of the second is not used in the special >>>>>>> relativity papers. >>>>>> >>>>>> But it has bearing on the physics of your idiot guru and his minions >>>>>> because it was used in the physics of your idiot guru and his >>>>>> minions. >>>>> >>>>> No, it is just time. No units referenced or used in the SR papers. >>>> No, actually Einstein used two numerical values with a unit in 'On the >>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies': >>>> >>>> 1 cm >>>> 1 dyne >>>> >>>> (Both in the same line) >>>> >>>> No other values with a unit were mentioned. >>> >>> But "a clock" is mentioned there, isn't it? >>> What is a clock? >>> >> Einstein wrote actually about his watch. A watch is a tiny machine, wich >> counts rotations of a tiny rotor and shows the result of that counting >> in a human-readable form. > > No. What you describe is a "stopwatch". such device is > a bit similiar to a clock and can be considered as a > special case of a clock. But it's not quite a clock and > has even a different name. No quite... What I wrote about is a common watch of the days of Einstein, which were mainly worn in the pocket (other than wrist-watches). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 22:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6498a869-43bc-403f-872b-e917a69688d2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615443 |
On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 07:00:44 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 15.07.2023 um 07:14 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 06:45:31 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 14.07.2023 um 07:16 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > >>> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:12:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>> Am 13.07.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Volney: > >>>> > >>>>>>> The definition of the second has no bearing on special relativity > >>>>>>> because the definition of the second is not used in the special > >>>>>>> relativity papers. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But it has bearing on the physics of your idiot guru and his minions > >>>>>> because it was used in the physics of your idiot guru and his > >>>>>> minions. > >>>>> > >>>>> No, it is just time. No units referenced or used in the SR papers. > >>>> No, actually Einstein used two numerical values with a unit in 'On the > >>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies': > >>>> > >>>> 1 cm > >>>> 1 dyne > >>>> > >>>> (Both in the same line) > >>>> > >>>> No other values with a unit were mentioned. > >>> > >>> But "a clock" is mentioned there, isn't it? > >>> What is a clock? > >>> > >> Einstein wrote actually about his watch. A watch is a tiny machine, wich > >> counts rotations of a tiny rotor and shows the result of that counting > >> in a human-readable form. > > > > No. What you describe is a "stopwatch". such device is > > a bit similiar to a clock and can be considered as a > > special case of a clock. But it's not quite a clock and > > has even a different name. > No quite... > > What I wrote about is a common watch of the days of Einstein, which were > mainly worn in the pocket (other than wrist-watches). So you've described it incorrectly. Do you see some difference between a watch and a stopwatch?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 08:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <khhh3jFhrjbU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615445 |
Am 16.07.2023 um 07:04 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 07:00:44 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 15.07.2023 um 07:14 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>> On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 06:45:31 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 14.07.2023 um 07:16 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>>>> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:12:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>> Am 13.07.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Volney: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The definition of the second has no bearing on special relativity >>>>>>>>> because the definition of the second is not used in the special >>>>>>>>> relativity papers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But it has bearing on the physics of your idiot guru and his minions >>>>>>>> because it was used in the physics of your idiot guru and his >>>>>>>> minions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it is just time. No units referenced or used in the SR papers. >>>>>> No, actually Einstein used two numerical values with a unit in 'On the >>>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies': >>>>>> >>>>>> 1 cm >>>>>> 1 dyne >>>>>> >>>>>> (Both in the same line) >>>>>> >>>>>> No other values with a unit were mentioned. >>>>> >>>>> But "a clock" is mentioned there, isn't it? >>>>> What is a clock? >>>>> >>>> Einstein wrote actually about his watch. A watch is a tiny machine, wich >>>> counts rotations of a tiny rotor and shows the result of that counting >>>> in a human-readable form. >>> >>> No. What you describe is a "stopwatch". such device is >>> a bit similiar to a clock and can be considered as a >>> special case of a clock. But it's not quite a clock and >>> has even a different name. >> No quite... >> >> What I wrote about is a common watch of the days of Einstein, which were >> mainly worn in the pocket (other than wrist-watches). > > So you've described it incorrectly. > Do you see some difference between a watch and > a stopwatch? > Yes, but Einstein wrote 'my watch', not 'my stopwatch'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 00:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <05bafd70-3111-4220-91e2-fcf37dc9472bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615452 |
On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:30:17 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 16.07.2023 um 07:04 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 07:00:44 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 15.07.2023 um 07:14 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > >>> On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 06:45:31 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>> Am 14.07.2023 um 07:16 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > >>>>> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:12:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>>> Am 13.07.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Volney: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The definition of the second has no bearing on special relativity > >>>>>>>>> because the definition of the second is not used in the special > >>>>>>>>> relativity papers. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> But it has bearing on the physics of your idiot guru and his minions > >>>>>>>> because it was used in the physics of your idiot guru and his > >>>>>>>> minions. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No, it is just time. No units referenced or used in the SR papers. > >>>>>> No, actually Einstein used two numerical values with a unit in 'On the > >>>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies': > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1 cm > >>>>>> 1 dyne > >>>>>> > >>>>>> (Both in the same line) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No other values with a unit were mentioned. > >>>>> > >>>>> But "a clock" is mentioned there, isn't it? > >>>>> What is a clock? > >>>>> > >>>> Einstein wrote actually about his watch. A watch is a tiny machine, wich > >>>> counts rotations of a tiny rotor and shows the result of that counting > >>>> in a human-readable form. > >>> > >>> No. What you describe is a "stopwatch". such device is > >>> a bit similiar to a clock and can be considered as a > >>> special case of a clock. But it's not quite a clock and > >>> has even a different name. > >> No quite... > >> > >> What I wrote about is a common watch of the days of Einstein, which were > >> mainly worn in the pocket (other than wrist-watches). > > > > So you've described it incorrectly. > > Do you see some difference between a watch and > > a stopwatch? > > > Yes, but Einstein wrote 'my watch', not 'my stopwatch'. And what you're describing is a stopwatch, not a watch. Neither Einstein knew, what a clock/watch really is, nor you do. The purpose of a clocks is not counting any cycles, it is - indicating a serie of numbers from outside of your tale of your delusional Laws of Nature. I.e. indicating time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 07:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <khk0a5FtueqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615454 |
Am 16.07.2023 um 09:57 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:30:17 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 16.07.2023 um 07:04 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>> On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 07:00:44 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 15.07.2023 um 07:14 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>>>> On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 06:45:31 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>> Am 14.07.2023 um 07:16 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>>>>>> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:12:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>> Am 13.07.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Volney: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The definition of the second has no bearing on special relativity >>>>>>>>>>> because the definition of the second is not used in the special >>>>>>>>>>> relativity papers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But it has bearing on the physics of your idiot guru and his minions >>>>>>>>>> because it was used in the physics of your idiot guru and his >>>>>>>>>> minions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, it is just time. No units referenced or used in the SR papers. >>>>>>>> No, actually Einstein used two numerical values with a unit in 'On the >>>>>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies': >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1 cm >>>>>>>> 1 dyne >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (Both in the same line) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No other values with a unit were mentioned. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But "a clock" is mentioned there, isn't it? >>>>>>> What is a clock? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Einstein wrote actually about his watch. A watch is a tiny machine, wich >>>>>> counts rotations of a tiny rotor and shows the result of that counting >>>>>> in a human-readable form. >>>>> >>>>> No. What you describe is a "stopwatch". such device is >>>>> a bit similiar to a clock and can be considered as a >>>>> special case of a clock. But it's not quite a clock and >>>>> has even a different name. >>>> No quite... >>>> >>>> What I wrote about is a common watch of the days of Einstein, which were >>>> mainly worn in the pocket (other than wrist-watches). >>> >>> So you've described it incorrectly. >>> Do you see some difference between a watch and >>> a stopwatch? >>> >> Yes, but Einstein wrote 'my watch', not 'my stopwatch'. > > And what you're describing is a stopwatch, not a watch. > Neither Einstein knew, what a clock/watch really is, nor > you do. > The purpose of a clocks is not counting any cycles, it is - > indicating a serie of numbers from outside of your tale > of your delusional Laws of Nature. I.e. indicating time. > ??? An early 20th century watch didn't show numbers, but such watches had hands, which rotated slowly around. They also unable to start and stop and then show the elapsed time. Such watches are called 'chronographs' and were invented later. Common watches had a tiny rotor in it and its rotations were actually counted by kind of 'gearbox', which made slow hands-movents out of rotations of the rotor. In effect the rotations were counted. That was not really a counting process, but the gears turned fast rotations of the rotor into slow rotations of the hands. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 23:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3816725b-700e-445d-bda3-341005a16478n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615502 |
On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 07:02:29 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 16.07.2023 um 09:57 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 08:30:17 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 16.07.2023 um 07:04 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > >>> On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 07:00:44 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>> Am 15.07.2023 um 07:14 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > >>>>> On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 06:45:31 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>>> Am 14.07.2023 um 07:16 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > >>>>>>> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:12:37 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>>>>> Am 13.07.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Volney: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The definition of the second has no bearing on special relativity > >>>>>>>>>>> because the definition of the second is not used in the special > >>>>>>>>>>> relativity papers. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> But it has bearing on the physics of your idiot guru and his minions > >>>>>>>>>> because it was used in the physics of your idiot guru and his > >>>>>>>>>> minions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No, it is just time. No units referenced or used in the SR papers. > >>>>>>>> No, actually Einstein used two numerical values with a unit in 'On the > >>>>>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies': > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1 cm > >>>>>>>> 1 dyne > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> (Both in the same line) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No other values with a unit were mentioned. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But "a clock" is mentioned there, isn't it? > >>>>>>> What is a clock? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Einstein wrote actually about his watch. A watch is a tiny machine, wich > >>>>>> counts rotations of a tiny rotor and shows the result of that counting > >>>>>> in a human-readable form. > >>>>> > >>>>> No. What you describe is a "stopwatch". such device is > >>>>> a bit similiar to a clock and can be considered as a > >>>>> special case of a clock. But it's not quite a clock and > >>>>> has even a different name. > >>>> No quite... > >>>> > >>>> What I wrote about is a common watch of the days of Einstein, which were > >>>> mainly worn in the pocket (other than wrist-watches). > >>> > >>> So you've described it incorrectly. > >>> Do you see some difference between a watch and > >>> a stopwatch? > >>> > >> Yes, but Einstein wrote 'my watch', not 'my stopwatch'. > > > > And what you're describing is a stopwatch, not a watch. > > Neither Einstein knew, what a clock/watch really is, nor > > you do. > > The purpose of a clocks is not counting any cycles, it is - > > indicating a serie of numbers from outside of your tale > > of your delusional Laws of Nature. I.e. indicating time. > > > ??? > > > An early 20th century watch didn't show numbers 08:56:33. Sounds familiar? https://allegro.pl/oferta/okazaly-secesyjny-zegar-linkowy-gustav-becker-13983469447 Small one shows one. Big hand another (after an easy conversion). If second hand is present, it shows third. 2023-07-17 08:56:33 is the full time signature, but the clocks are responsible for its less significant part only. > They also unable to start and stop and then show the elapsed time. Right. > Common watches had a tiny rotor in it and its rotations were actually > counted by kind of 'gearbox', which made slow hands-movents out of > rotations of the rotor. > In effect the rotations were counted. They were. So? If a windmill is waving its hands, is that what its purpose is - waving hands? Counting cycles is - for a clock - the easiest way of doing what it is supposed to do (displaying expected numbers) with usually a good precision. That's all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-18 08:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <khmoa5FcueqU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615514 |
Am 17.07.2023 um 08:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > >> Common watches had a tiny rotor in it and its rotations were actually >> counted by kind of 'gearbox', which made slow hands-movents out of >> rotations of the rotor. >> In effect the rotations were counted. > > They were. So? If a windmill is waving its hands, is that > what its purpose is - waving hands? Whatever you take, you should consume less.... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 23:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <280d74aa-89a7-4ff2-b784-2fe7b8ebb65cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615559 |
On Tuesday, 18 July 2023 at 08:03:53 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 17.07.2023 um 08:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > > > >> Common watches had a tiny rotor in it and its rotations were actually > >> counted by kind of 'gearbox', which made slow hands-movents out of > >> rotations of the rotor. > >> In effect the rotations were counted. > > > > They were. So? If a windmill is waving its hands, is that > > what its purpose is - waving hands? > Whatever you take, you should consume less.... Whatever I take, it's not the reason why you can't answer a simple question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-19 07:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <khpbdiFpkn3U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615560 |
Am 18.07.2023 um 08:41 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > On Tuesday, 18 July 2023 at 08:03:53 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 17.07.2023 um 08:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >> >>> >>>> Common watches had a tiny rotor in it and its rotations were actually >>>> counted by kind of 'gearbox', which made slow hands-movents out of >>>> rotations of the rotor. >>>> In effect the rotations were counted. >>> >>> They were. So? If a windmill is waving its hands, is that >>> what its purpose is - waving hands? >> Whatever you take, you should consume less.... > > Whatever I take, it's not the reason why you can't > answer a simple question. > Of course I could answer the question of the purposes for a wind-mill: usually milling This is actually not always the case, since many wind-mills are used for other purposes like as living space or to house a museum. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-18 22:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88b71623-8a31-43f5-b986-d2ec797ed6ccn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615641 |
On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 07:42:15 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 18.07.2023 um 08:41 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > On Tuesday, 18 July 2023 at 08:03:53 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 17.07.2023 um 08:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > >> > >>> > >>>> Common watches had a tiny rotor in it and its rotations were actually > >>>> counted by kind of 'gearbox', which made slow hands-movents out of > >>>> rotations of the rotor. > >>>> In effect the rotations were counted. > >>> > >>> They were. So? If a windmill is waving its hands, is that > >>> what its purpose is - waving hands? > >> Whatever you take, you should consume less.... > > > > Whatever I take, it's not the reason why you can't > > answer a simple question. > > > Of course I could answer the question of the purposes for a wind-mill: > > usually milling So: [x] is doing [y] doesn't mean [y] is the purpose of [x]. Right? That [most of] clocks are counting some cycles doesn't mean it's their purpose. We already have clocks not counting any cycles, BTW. They're just displaying some values they're receiving from the net, or by radio.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-20 07:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <khrvrcF8365U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615642 |
Am 19.07.2023 um 07:52 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 07:42:15 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 18.07.2023 um 08:41 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>> On Tuesday, 18 July 2023 at 08:03:53 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 17.07.2023 um 08:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Common watches had a tiny rotor in it and its rotations were actually >>>>>> counted by kind of 'gearbox', which made slow hands-movents out of >>>>>> rotations of the rotor. >>>>>> In effect the rotations were counted. >>>>> >>>>> They were. So? If a windmill is waving its hands, is that >>>>> what its purpose is - waving hands? >>>> Whatever you take, you should consume less.... >>> >>> Whatever I take, it's not the reason why you can't >>> answer a simple question. >>> >> Of course I could answer the question of the purposes for a wind-mill: >> >> usually milling > > So: [x] is doing [y] doesn't mean [y] is the purpose > of [x]. Right? > That [most of] clocks are counting some cycles > doesn't mean it's their purpose. We already have > clocks not counting any cycles, BTW. They're just > displaying some values they're receiving from the > net, or by radio. > I wrote: "An early 20th century watch didn't show numbers..." Therefore, I was talking about the clocks in Einstein's paper and not about clocks per se. You are in fact right and many clocks don't have hands, but show time on some sort of digital display or use other means. But not so in Einstein's time, where clocks usually had hands. Many clocks today have also other vibrfators inside than in those days, like quarz cristalls or whatever advanced means are used. But the quarz watch wasn't invented in 1905. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-19 23:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c983058-50db-4ed9-affc-53e2fdf65252n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615731 |
On Thursday, 20 July 2023 at 07:43:13 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 19.07.2023 um 07:52 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 07:42:15 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 18.07.2023 um 08:41 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > >>> On Tuesday, 18 July 2023 at 08:03:53 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>> Am 17.07.2023 um 08:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Common watches had a tiny rotor in it and its rotations were actually > >>>>>> counted by kind of 'gearbox', which made slow hands-movents out of > >>>>>> rotations of the rotor. > >>>>>> In effect the rotations were counted. > >>>>> > >>>>> They were. So? If a windmill is waving its hands, is that > >>>>> what its purpose is - waving hands? > >>>> Whatever you take, you should consume less.... > >>> > >>> Whatever I take, it's not the reason why you can't > >>> answer a simple question. > >>> > >> Of course I could answer the question of the purposes for a wind-mill: > >> > >> usually milling > > > > So: [x] is doing [y] doesn't mean [y] is the purpose > > of [x]. Right? > > That [most of] clocks are counting some cycles > > doesn't mean it's their purpose. We already have > > clocks not counting any cycles, BTW. They're just > > displaying some values they're receiving from the > > net, or by radio. > > > I wrote: > "An early 20th century watch didn't show numbers..." You wrote, indeed. And some other nonsenses as well. They did, that's what the hands were for - to indicate numbers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 💩💩💩💩💩💩 <urma@isuarmsa.rr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-20 08:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u9ar0n$3ae65$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #615731 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > I wrote: > "An early 20th century watch didn't show numbers..." > > Therefore, I was talking about the clocks in Einstein's paper and not > about clocks per se. 💩💩💩💩💩💩 your country is a shithole, ran by 100% idiots. Please Russia sink any and all ships attempting to transit into Odessa. If they are British warships all the better!. They are lying inbreed terrorist criminals, from the head of state, down to the lowest inbreed level. Here is the proof. 𝗕𝗔𝗟𝗧𝗢𝗣𝗦22 (aka 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶_𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼 𝘽𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙞𝙘_𝙊𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨_𝙮𝙚𝙖𝙧_2022) These countries will exercise 𝗮_𝗺𝘆𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗱_𝗼𝗳_𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀, demonstrating the 𝗶𝗻𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗳𝗹𝗲𝘅𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗼𝗳_𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀. Exercise scenarios include amphibious, gunnery, 𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗲, air defense, and 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, as well as 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹, 𝘂𝗻𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘄𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 and 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝘃𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲_𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀, and medical responses. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/06/baltops-2023-exercise-kicks-off-in-the-baltic-sea/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-20 01:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <u9ar5h$2kis4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #615746 |
On 7/20/2023 1:24 AM, 💩💩💩💩💩💩 wrote: > Thomas Heger wrote: > >> I wrote: >> "An early 20th century watch didn't show numbers..." >> >> Therefore, I was talking about the clocks in Einstein's paper and not >> about clocks per se. > > 💩💩💩💩💩💩 your country is a shithole, ran by 100% idiots. > > Please Russia sink any and all ships attempting to transit into Odessa. If they are British warships all the better!. They are lying inbreed terrorist criminals, from the head of state, down to the lowest inbreed level. Here is the proof. [...] What would happen if Russia launched, say, 42 hyper sonic state of the art anti ship missiles at a single US carrier?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Layne Jatzkovsky <sont@vaastvol.ea> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-20 09:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u9at9c$3alac$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #615747 |
Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> 💩💩💩💩💩💩 your country is a shithole, ran by 100% idiots. >> >> Please Russia sink any and all ships attempting to transit into Odessa. >> If they are British warships all the better!. They are lying inbreed >> terrorist criminals, from the head of state, down to the lowest inbreed >> level. Here is the proof. > [...] > > What would happen if Russia launched, say, 42 hyper sonic state of the > art anti ship missiles at a single US carrier? I think it would be enough with one. The Chinese have them prepared and ready. It would be stupid otherwise. The stupidest military in the world still having carriers. To show their mighty. What a fools.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web