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 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-20 22:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <QsEzQ.38334$ytS9.26802@fx17.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666168 |
Den 19.09.2025 15:59, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > 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: >>>> 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 you mixed them all and > insisted that it's UTC which is ruling > GPS for a long time. And the "them" I mixed were TAI, GPS-time and UTC, right? 25.08.2025, Paul B. Andersen wrote: | TAI, UTC and GPS-time all run at the same rate as a clock | running according to the SI definition (SI-clock) placed | on the geoid. | They are all coordinate times in the non rotating Earth-centred | frame of reference, which means that the coordinate time | at any instant is the same everywhere in said frame of reference. | That means that SI-clocks will not generally run synchronous | with TAI, UTC or GPS-time. | | TAI (International Atomic Time) is the average of more than | 450 Atomic clocks distributed around the world. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time | | UTC is based on TAI, but since the rotation of the Earth | varies and seems to slow down, leap seconds are inserted | as needed to (loosely) keep UTC in sync with the solar mean | time at longitude 0. | UTC is currently 27 seconds behind TAI. Typo. UTC is currently 37 seconds behind TAI. | | GPS-time is the time sent to the receiver by the SV (space vehicle). | It is the same as TAI. This is the time the GPS receiver use to | calculation of the position. GPS-time is the same as TAI-19 seconds. Point being that GPS-time is derived from TAI, not from UTC. | The SV will however also send the UTC to the receiver, because | the receivers and GPS-watches will display the UTC, not | the GPS-time. | | So yes, the UTC sent to the receiver from the GPS satellite | is in sync with UTC. | | See the Interface Control Document: | https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf | | 20.3.3.5.1.6 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) Parameters | page 120 | The truth is that you still don't know what TAI, GPS-time and UTC are. You don't even know what is a coordinate time in the non rotating Earth-centred frame of reference. To my statement: "The TAI network, which is the base of UTC and the time zones, could not work without atomic clocks with the inbuilt SI-definition of second." You responded: "Sorry, that is not any fact, that's a very impudent lie, expected of course from a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if they tried, they would soon loose the synchronization - will you deny?" (I suppose ISo should be SI) :-D > 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 Quite. You claim that SR and GR are nonsense, and the units defined by SI are never used, All educated physicists know that SR and GR are valid theories which never are falsified. There is nothing wrong about being ignorant of physics, most people are. But sane people who know they are ignorant of physics, will not claim that physicists are wrong. You have demonstrated that you are ignorant of elementary physics. You also don't know elementary logic, as demonstrated in the following: Den 21.08.2025 23:32, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 8/21/2025 9:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> One simple question: >> >> A clock running according to the SI definition of second >> will, when it is on the ground, stay in sync with the UTC. >> >> But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be >> adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to stay in sync with UTC. >> >> Why is that? > > That's because the clocks are ruled by > common sense, not by some religious maniacs > mumbling about some delusional "laws of > nature" allegedly forcing these clocks > to run desynchronized. I will not offend the reader by explaining what is the only logical conclusion. So you see, Maciej, when you claim to be smarter than Einstein, and that all experimental physicists are "brainwashed religious maniacs", then you must take the beatingyou get in this forum. However, since it may be said to be unethical to pester a person with your mental problems, I will not respond to you any more. Now you can keep shouting statements like: "You may announce a sheep to be a 'proper shark', but it won't affect the real shark. Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not affecting the real time - which is NOT a physical entity, but a cultural one, and remains non-local and bound to Earth and Solar System." or: "It's not any experimental evidence, it's just some assertions of a bunch of brainwashed religious maniacs, unfortunately." or: "Yes, sure, when we only have a theory of angels pushing - the movements of planets confirms; when we only have a theory of Zeus The Thunderer - thunders confirm; that's the logic of a relativistic idiot." or: "Paul, poor trah, there is no evidence, there is just an ignorant idiot asserting about having unfailable evidence, spitting and slandering." or: "Paul, poor trash, your idiot guru has predicted deflection of space and spacetime, not deflection of light. Do you understand the difference? Of course, not. Poincare could explain it to you, but you're too dumb for Poincare. Anyway, even you and your fellow cultists are not stupid enough to accept the insane schema of your insane guru, and that's where "light deflection" came from." or: "You may easily write a definition of a shark as a grass eater - but it won't force real sharks to eat grass. Sorry, trash. You may try, of course, enforcing your absurd newspeak on the rest of the world. But it's not as easy as Orwell wrote, and your church is too stupid to succeed anyway." or: "Rave and spit, trash, the facts won't go away. The real measurement results are not matching your beloved Shit and you're even stupid enough to admit it occasionally." or: "No, TAI second is NOT your SI idiocy. If they applied your idiocy they would have no synchronization." or: "That's what SI definition was invented for - enforcing fulfilling those moronic prophecies about desynchronized (not indicating t'=t) clocks. Of course - The Shit had never any real chance for that. It was obvious it's mad commands will be ignored, common sense has been warning." ... I will not ridicule you because I won't see it. < *PLUNK* > Have a nice life! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Azael Christakos <aslo@aors.gr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-20 21:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10an6e0$1c748$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666187 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > | UTC is based on TAI, but since the rotation of the Earth | varies and > seems to slow down, leap seconds are inserted | as needed to (loosely) > keep UTC in sync with the solar mean | time at longitude 0. > | UTC is currently 27 seconds behind TAI. > > Typo. UTC is currently 37 seconds behind TAI. the rate is essential, not that they are in synch and lags behind. They are not in synch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-21 12:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1rj0g3r.yvv13o1ecmuorN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #666188 |
Azael Christakos <aslo@aors.gr> wrote: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > | UTC is based on TAI, but since the rotation of the Earth | varies and > > seems to slow down, leap seconds are inserted | as needed to (loosely) > > keep UTC in sync with the solar mean | time at longitude 0. > > | UTC is currently 27 seconds behind TAI. > > > > Typo. UTC is currently 37 seconds behind TAI. > > the rate is essential, not that they are in synch and lags behind. They > are not in synch. Real scientists, and astronomers, and 19th century sea captains, already knew that master clocks should not be synchronised. It suffices to note the differences. Phileas Fogg knew it too. In fact that is all that TAI is: a periodically updated table of differences, and of rate divergencies, and a weighted average of them all. (maintained by BIPM) That said, TAI -37s is in sync with UTC, exactly, and by definition, (until it becomes -38s) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaugn Krakowski <ksa@nink.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-21 12:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10aoph9$1n71m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666194 |
J. J. Lodder wrote: >> > Typo. UTC is currently 37 seconds behind TAI. >> >> the rate is essential, not that they are in synch and lags behind. They >> are not in synch. > > Real scientists, and astronomers, and 19th century sea captains, already > knew that master clocks should not be synchronised. > It suffices to note the differences. > Phileas Fogg knew it too. > > In fact that is all that TAI is: a periodically updated table of > differences, and of rate divergencies, > and a weighted average of them all. > (maintained by BIPM) > > That said, TAI -37s is in sync with UTC, exactly, and by definition, > (until it becomes -38s) you just proved they are not in sync, but periodically updated to lag behind. Or rather you dont capisce what you say, idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-20 23:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18671b401e5feadf$327177$2497048$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666187 |
On 9/20/2025 10:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 19.09.2025 15:59, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> 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: >>>>> 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 you mixed them all and >> insisted that it's UTC which is ruling >> GPS for a long time. > > And the "them" I mixed were TAI, GPS-time and UTC, right? > > 25.08.2025, Paul B. Andersen wrote: And just some time earlier Paul B.Andersen wrote (many times) that GPS clocks are synchronized to UTC. Now Paul B. Andersen may deny, because Paul B. Andersen is extremly stupid and dishonest piece of lying shit. Of course, that was well known before.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-21 12:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1rj0fy5.b7p93vpn18ktN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #666187 |
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: > Den 19.09.2025 15:59, skrev Maciej Wo?niak: > > On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 18.09.2025 22:37, skrev Maciej Wo?niak: > >>> On 9/18/2025 10:14 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>>> 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 you mixed them all and > > insisted that it's UTC which is ruling > > GPS for a long time. > > And the "them" I mixed were TAI, GPS-time and UTC, right? > > 25.08.2025, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > | TAI, UTC and GPS-time all run at the same rate as a clock > | running according to the SI definition (SI-clock) placed > | on the geoid. > | They are all coordinate times in the non rotating Earth-centred > | frame of reference, which means that the coordinate time > | at any instant is the same everywhere in said frame of reference. > | That means that SI-clocks will not generally run synchronous > | with TAI, UTC or GPS-time. > | > | TAI (International Atomic Time) is the average of more than > | 450 Atomic clocks distributed around the world. > | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time > | > | UTC is based on TAI, but since the rotation of the Earth > | varies and seems to slow down, leap seconds are inserted > | as needed to (loosely) keep UTC in sync with the solar mean > | time at longitude 0. > | UTC is currently 27 seconds behind TAI. > > Typo. UTC is currently 37 seconds behind TAI. > > | > | GPS-time is the time sent to the receiver by the SV (space vehicle). > | It is the same as TAI. This is the time the GPS receiver use to > | calculation of the position. > > GPS-time is the same as TAI-19 seconds. > Point being that GPS-time is derived from TAI, not from UTC. > > | The SV will however also send the UTC to the receiver, because > | the receivers and GPS-watches will display the UTC, not > | the GPS-time. > | > | So yes, the UTC sent to the receiver from the GPS satellite > | is in sync with UTC. > | > | See the Interface Control Document: > | https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf > | > | 20.3.3.5.1.6 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) Parameters > | page 120 > | > > The truth is that you still don't know what TAI, GPS-time > and UTC are. You don't even know what is a coordinate time in > the non rotating Earth-centred frame of reference. > > To my statement: > "The TAI network, which is the base of UTC and the time > zones, could not work without atomic clocks with the inbuilt > SI-definition of second." > > You responded: > "Sorry, that is not any fact, that's > a very impudent lie, expected of course from > a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they > surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if > they tried, they would soon loose the > synchronization - will you deny?" > > (I suppose ISo should be SI) :-D > > > > 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 > Quite. > You claim that SR and GR are nonsense, > and the units defined by SI are never used, > > All educated physicists know that SR and GR are > valid theories which never are falsified. > > There is nothing wrong about being ignorant of physics, > most people are. > But sane people who know they are ignorant of physics, > will not claim that physicists are wrong. > > You have demonstrated that you are ignorant of elementary > physics. You also don't know elementary logic, as demonstrated > in the following: > > Den 21.08.2025 23:32, skrev Maciej Wo?niak: > > On 8/21/2025 9:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> > >> One simple question: > >> > >> A clock running according to the SI definition of second > >> will, when it is on the ground, stay in sync with the UTC. > >> > >> But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be > >> adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to stay in sync with UTC. > >> > >> Why is that? > > > > That's because the clocks are ruled by > > common sense, not by some religious maniacs > > mumbling about some delusional "laws of > > nature" allegedly forcing these clocks > > to run desynchronized. > > I will not offend the reader by explaining what is > the only logical conclusion. > > So you see, Maciej, when you claim to be smarter than > Einstein, and that all experimental physicists are > "brainwashed religious maniacs", then you must take > the beatingyou get in this forum. > > However, since it may be said to be unethical to pester > a person with your mental problems, I will not respond > to you any more. > > Now you can keep shouting statements like: > > "You may announce a sheep to be a 'proper shark', > but it won't affect the real shark. > Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not > affecting the real time - which is NOT a > physical entity, but a cultural one, and > remains non-local and bound to Earth and > Solar System." > > or: > > "It's not any experimental evidence, it's > just some assertions of a bunch of brainwashed > religious maniacs, unfortunately." > > or: > > "Yes, sure, when we only have a theory > of angels pushing - the movements of > planets confirms; when we only have a > theory of Zeus The Thunderer - thunders confirm; > that's the logic of a relativistic idiot." > > or: > > "Paul, poor trah, there is no evidence, there > is just an ignorant idiot asserting about > having unfailable evidence, spitting and > slandering." > > or: > > "Paul, poor trash, your idiot guru has predicted > deflection of space and spacetime, not deflection > of light. Do you understand the difference? > Of course, not. Poincare could explain it to you, > but you're too dumb for Poincare. > Anyway, even you and your fellow cultists are > not stupid enough to accept the insane schema > of your insane guru, and that's where "light > deflection" came from." > > or: > > "You may easily write a definition of a shark > as a grass eater - but it won't force real > sharks to eat grass. Sorry, trash. You may > try, of course, enforcing your absurd > newspeak on the rest of the world. But it's > not as easy as Orwell wrote, and your church > is too stupid to succeed anyway." > > or: > > "Rave and spit, trash, the facts won't go away. > The real measurement results are not matching > your beloved Shit and you're even stupid > enough to admit it occasionally." > > or: > > "No, TAI second is NOT your SI idiocy. > If they applied your idiocy they would > have no synchronization." > > or: > > "That's what SI definition was invented > for - enforcing fulfilling those moronic > prophecies about desynchronized (not > indicating t'=t) clocks. Of course - > The Shit had never any real chance for > that. It was obvious it's mad commands > will be ignored, common sense has been > warning." > > ... I will not ridicule you because I won't see it. > > > < *PLUNK* > > > Have a nice life! I greatly admire your patience, for this long, and your ability to suffer fools gladly. I gave up on him months ago, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-21 15:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18674fa0f1a2b922$525272$2486865$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666195 |
On 9/21/2025 12:52 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: > >> Den 19.09.2025 15:59, skrev Maciej Wo?niak: >>> On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 18.09.2025 22:37, skrev Maciej Wo?niak: >>>>> On 9/18/2025 10:14 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>> 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 you mixed them all and >>> insisted that it's UTC which is ruling >>> GPS for a long time. >> >> And the "them" I mixed were TAI, GPS-time and UTC, right? >> >> 25.08.2025, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> | TAI, UTC and GPS-time all run at the same rate as a clock >> | running according to the SI definition (SI-clock) placed >> | on the geoid. >> | They are all coordinate times in the non rotating Earth-centred >> | frame of reference, which means that the coordinate time >> | at any instant is the same everywhere in said frame of reference. >> | That means that SI-clocks will not generally run synchronous >> | with TAI, UTC or GPS-time. >> | >> | TAI (International Atomic Time) is the average of more than >> | 450 Atomic clocks distributed around the world. >> | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time >> | >> | UTC is based on TAI, but since the rotation of the Earth >> | varies and seems to slow down, leap seconds are inserted >> | as needed to (loosely) keep UTC in sync with the solar mean >> | time at longitude 0. >> | UTC is currently 27 seconds behind TAI. >> >> Typo. UTC is currently 37 seconds behind TAI. >> >> | >> | GPS-time is the time sent to the receiver by the SV (space vehicle). >> | It is the same as TAI. This is the time the GPS receiver use to >> | calculation of the position. >> >> GPS-time is the same as TAI-19 seconds. >> Point being that GPS-time is derived from TAI, not from UTC. >> >> | The SV will however also send the UTC to the receiver, because >> | the receivers and GPS-watches will display the UTC, not >> | the GPS-time. >> | >> | So yes, the UTC sent to the receiver from the GPS satellite >> | is in sync with UTC. >> | >> | See the Interface Control Document: >> | https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf >> | >> | 20.3.3.5.1.6 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) Parameters >> | page 120 >> | >> >> The truth is that you still don't know what TAI, GPS-time >> and UTC are. You don't even know what is a coordinate time in >> the non rotating Earth-centred frame of reference. >> >> To my statement: >> "The TAI network, which is the base of UTC and the time >> zones, could not work without atomic clocks with the inbuilt >> SI-definition of second." >> >> You responded: >> "Sorry, that is not any fact, that's >> a very impudent lie, expected of course from >> a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they >> surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if >> they tried, they would soon loose the >> synchronization - will you deny?" >> >> (I suppose ISo should be SI) :-D >> >> >>> 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 >> Quite. >> You claim that SR and GR are nonsense, >> and the units defined by SI are never used, >> >> All educated physicists know that SR and GR are >> valid theories which never are falsified. >> >> There is nothing wrong about being ignorant of physics, >> most people are. >> But sane people who know they are ignorant of physics, >> will not claim that physicists are wrong. >> >> You have demonstrated that you are ignorant of elementary >> physics. You also don't know elementary logic, as demonstrated >> in the following: >> >> Den 21.08.2025 23:32, skrev Maciej Wo?niak: >> > On 8/21/2025 9:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> >> >> One simple question: >> >> >> >> A clock running according to the SI definition of second >> >> will, when it is on the ground, stay in sync with the UTC. >> >> >> >> But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be >> >> adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to stay in sync with UTC. >> >> >> >> Why is that? >> > >> > That's because the clocks are ruled by >> > common sense, not by some religious maniacs >> > mumbling about some delusional "laws of >> > nature" allegedly forcing these clocks >> > to run desynchronized. >> >> I will not offend the reader by explaining what is >> the only logical conclusion. >> >> So you see, Maciej, when you claim to be smarter than >> Einstein, and that all experimental physicists are >> "brainwashed religious maniacs", then you must take >> the beatingyou get in this forum. >> >> However, since it may be said to be unethical to pester >> a person with your mental problems, I will not respond >> to you any more. >> >> Now you can keep shouting statements like: >> >> "You may announce a sheep to be a 'proper shark', >> but it won't affect the real shark. >> Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not >> affecting the real time - which is NOT a >> physical entity, but a cultural one, and >> remains non-local and bound to Earth and >> Solar System." >> >> or: >> >> "It's not any experimental evidence, it's >> just some assertions of a bunch of brainwashed >> religious maniacs, unfortunately." >> >> or: >> >> "Yes, sure, when we only have a theory >> of angels pushing - the movements of >> planets confirms; when we only have a >> theory of Zeus The Thunderer - thunders confirm; >> that's the logic of a relativistic idiot." >> >> or: >> >> "Paul, poor trah, there is no evidence, there >> is just an ignorant idiot asserting about >> having unfailable evidence, spitting and >> slandering." >> >> or: >> >> "Paul, poor trash, your idiot guru has predicted >> deflection of space and spacetime, not deflection >> of light. Do you understand the difference? >> Of course, not. Poincare could explain it to you, >> but you're too dumb for Poincare. >> Anyway, even you and your fellow cultists are >> not stupid enough to accept the insane schema >> of your insane guru, and that's where "light >> deflection" came from." >> >> or: >> >> "You may easily write a definition of a shark >> as a grass eater - but it won't force real >> sharks to eat grass. Sorry, trash. You may >> try, of course, enforcing your absurd >> newspeak on the rest of the world. But it's >> not as easy as Orwell wrote, and your church >> is too stupid to succeed anyway." >> >> or: >> >> "Rave and spit, trash, the facts won't go away. >> The real measurement results are not matching >> your beloved Shit and you're even stupid >> enough to admit it occasionally." >> >> or: >> >> "No, TAI second is NOT your SI idiocy. >> If they applied your idiocy they would >> have no synchronization." >> >> or: >> >> "That's what SI definition was invented >> for - enforcing fulfilling those moronic >> prophecies about desynchronized (not >> indicating t'=t) clocks. Of course - >> The Shit had never any real chance for >> that. It was obvious it's mad commands >> will be ignored, common sense has been >> warning." >> >> ... I will not ridicule you because I won't see it. >> >> >> < *PLUNK* > >> >> Have a nice life! > > I greatly admire your patience, for this long, > and your ability to suffer fools gladly. > > I gave up on him months ago, You've run crying, poor trash, and Paul soon will too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-21 15:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xvg01Spe-g7qn1M24qOdIignHjg@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666197 |
Le 21/09/2025 à 15:35, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/21/2025 12:52 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >> >>> Den 19.09.2025 15:59, skrev Maciej Wo?niak: >>>> On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> Den 18.09.2025 22:37, skrev Maciej Wo?niak: >>>>>> On 9/18/2025 10:14 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>> 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 you mixed them all and >>>> insisted that it's UTC which is ruling >>>> GPS for a long time. >>> >>> And the "them" I mixed were TAI, GPS-time and UTC, right? >>> >>> 25.08.2025, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> | TAI, UTC and GPS-time all run at the same rate as a clock >>> | running according to the SI definition (SI-clock) placed >>> | on the geoid. >>> | They are all coordinate times in the non rotating Earth-centred >>> | frame of reference, which means that the coordinate time >>> | at any instant is the same everywhere in said frame of reference. >>> | That means that SI-clocks will not generally run synchronous >>> | with TAI, UTC or GPS-time. >>> | >>> | TAI (International Atomic Time) is the average of more than >>> | 450 Atomic clocks distributed around the world. >>> | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time >>> | >>> | UTC is based on TAI, but since the rotation of the Earth >>> | varies and seems to slow down, leap seconds are inserted >>> | as needed to (loosely) keep UTC in sync with the solar mean >>> | time at longitude 0. >>> | UTC is currently 27 seconds behind TAI. >>> >>> Typo. UTC is currently 37 seconds behind TAI. >>> >>> | >>> | GPS-time is the time sent to the receiver by the SV (space vehicle). >>> | It is the same as TAI. This is the time the GPS receiver use to >>> | calculation of the position. >>> >>> GPS-time is the same as TAI-19 seconds. >>> Point being that GPS-time is derived from TAI, not from UTC. >>> >>> | The SV will however also send the UTC to the receiver, because >>> | the receivers and GPS-watches will display the UTC, not >>> | the GPS-time. >>> | >>> | So yes, the UTC sent to the receiver from the GPS satellite >>> | is in sync with UTC. >>> | >>> | See the Interface Control Document: >>> | https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf >>> | >>> | 20.3.3.5.1.6 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) Parameters >>> | page 120 >>> | >>> >>> The truth is that you still don't know what TAI, GPS-time >>> and UTC are. You don't even know what is a coordinate time in >>> the non rotating Earth-centred frame of reference. >>> >>> To my statement: >>> "The TAI network, which is the base of UTC and the time >>> zones, could not work without atomic clocks with the inbuilt >>> SI-definition of second." >>> >>> You responded: >>> "Sorry, that is not any fact, that's >>> a very impudent lie, expected of course from >>> a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they >>> surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if >>> they tried, they would soon loose the >>> synchronization - will you deny?" >>> >>> (I suppose ISo should be SI) :-D >>> >>> >>>> 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 >>> Quite. >>> You claim that SR and GR are nonsense, >>> and the units defined by SI are never used, >>> >>> All educated physicists know that SR and GR are >>> valid theories which never are falsified. >>> >>> There is nothing wrong about being ignorant of physics, >>> most people are. >>> But sane people who know they are ignorant of physics, >>> will not claim that physicists are wrong. >>> >>> You have demonstrated that you are ignorant of elementary >>> physics. You also don't know elementary logic, as demonstrated >>> in the following: >>> >>> Den 21.08.2025 23:32, skrev Maciej Wo?niak: >>> > On 8/21/2025 9:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >> >>> >> One simple question: >>> >> >>> >> A clock running according to the SI definition of second >>> >> will, when it is on the ground, stay in sync with the UTC. >>> >> >>> >> But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be >>> >> adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to stay in sync with UTC. >>> >> >>> >> Why is that? >>> > >>> > That's because the clocks are ruled by >>> > common sense, not by some religious maniacs >>> > mumbling about some delusional "laws of >>> > nature" allegedly forcing these clocks >>> > to run desynchronized. >>> >>> I will not offend the reader by explaining what is >>> the only logical conclusion. >>> >>> So you see, Maciej, when you claim to be smarter than >>> Einstein, and that all experimental physicists are >>> "brainwashed religious maniacs", then you must take >>> the beatingyou get in this forum. >>> >>> However, since it may be said to be unethical to pester >>> a person with your mental problems, I will not respond >>> to you any more. >>> >>> Now you can keep shouting statements like: >>> >>> "You may announce a sheep to be a 'proper shark', >>> but it won't affect the real shark. >>> Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not >>> affecting the real time - which is NOT a >>> physical entity, but a cultural one, and >>> remains non-local and bound to Earth and >>> Solar System." >>> >>> or: >>> >>> "It's not any experimental evidence, it's >>> just some assertions of a bunch of brainwashed >>> religious maniacs, unfortunately." >>> >>> or: >>> >>> "Yes, sure, when we only have a theory >>> of angels pushing - the movements of >>> planets confirms; when we only have a >>> theory of Zeus The Thunderer - thunders confirm; >>> that's the logic of a relativistic idiot." >>> >>> or: >>> >>> "Paul, poor trah, there is no evidence, there >>> is just an ignorant idiot asserting about >>> having unfailable evidence, spitting and >>> slandering." >>> >>> or: >>> >>> "Paul, poor trash, your idiot guru has predicted >>> deflection of space and spacetime, not deflection >>> of light. Do you understand the difference? >>> Of course, not. Poincare could explain it to you, >>> but you're too dumb for Poincare. >>> Anyway, even you and your fellow cultists are >>> not stupid enough to accept the insane schema >>> of your insane guru, and that's where "light >>> deflection" came from." >>> >>> or: >>> >>> "You may easily write a definition of a shark >>> as a grass eater - but it won't force real >>> sharks to eat grass. Sorry, trash. You may >>> try, of course, enforcing your absurd >>> newspeak on the rest of the world. But it's >>> not as easy as Orwell wrote, and your church >>> is too stupid to succeed anyway." >>> >>> or: >>> >>> "Rave and spit, trash, the facts won't go away. >>> The real measurement results are not matching >>> your beloved Shit and you're even stupid >>> enough to admit it occasionally." >>> >>> or: >>> >>> "No, TAI second is NOT your SI idiocy. >>> If they applied your idiocy they would >>> have no synchronization." >>> >>> or: >>> >>> "That's what SI definition was invented >>> for - enforcing fulfilling those moronic >>> prophecies about desynchronized (not >>> indicating t'=t) clocks. Of course - >>> The Shit had never any real chance for >>> that. It was obvious it's mad commands >>> will be ignored, common sense has been >>> warning." >>> >>> ... I will not ridicule you because I won't see it. >>> >>> >>> < *PLUNK* > >>> >>> Have a nice life! >> >> I greatly admire your patience, for this long, >> and your ability to suffer fools gladly. >> >> I gave up on him months ago, > > You've run crying, > and Paul soon will too. Delusion is too weak of a word. > poor trash Nice signature!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-21 19:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18675c9c6a05d7e7$1336949$2996671$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666198 |
On 9/21/2025 5:26 PM, Python wrote: > Le 21/09/2025 à 15:35, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/21/2025 12:52 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >>> >>>> Den 19.09.2025 15:59, skrev Maciej Wo?niak: >>>>> On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>> Den 18.09.2025 22:37, skrev Maciej Wo?niak: >>>>>>> On 9/18/2025 10:14 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>>>> 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 you mixed them all and >>>>> insisted that it's UTC which is ruling >>>>> GPS for a long time. >>>> >>>> And the "them" I mixed were TAI, GPS-time and UTC, right? >>>> >>>> 25.08.2025, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> | TAI, UTC and GPS-time all run at the same rate as a clock >>>> | running according to the SI definition (SI-clock) placed >>>> | on the geoid. >>>> | They are all coordinate times in the non rotating Earth-centred >>>> | frame of reference, which means that the coordinate time >>>> | at any instant is the same everywhere in said frame of reference. >>>> | That means that SI-clocks will not generally run synchronous >>>> | with TAI, UTC or GPS-time. >>>> | >>>> | TAI (International Atomic Time) is the average of more than >>>> | 450 Atomic clocks distributed around the world. >>>> | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time >>>> | >>>> | UTC is based on TAI, but since the rotation of the Earth >>>> | varies and seems to slow down, leap seconds are inserted >>>> | as needed to (loosely) keep UTC in sync with the solar mean >>>> | time at longitude 0. >>>> | UTC is currently 27 seconds behind TAI. >>>> >>>> Typo. UTC is currently 37 seconds behind TAI. >>>> >>>> | >>>> | GPS-time is the time sent to the receiver by the SV (space vehicle). >>>> | It is the same as TAI. This is the time the GPS receiver use to >>>> | calculation of the position. >>>> >>>> GPS-time is the same as TAI-19 seconds. >>>> Point being that GPS-time is derived from TAI, not from UTC. >>>> >>>> | The SV will however also send the UTC to the receiver, because >>>> | the receivers and GPS-watches will display the UTC, not >>>> | the GPS-time. >>>> | >>>> | So yes, the UTC sent to the receiver from the GPS satellite >>>> | is in sync with UTC. >>>> | >>>> | See the Interface Control Document: >>>> | https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf >>>> | >>>> | 20.3.3.5.1.6 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) Parameters >>>> | page 120 >>>> | >>>> >>>> The truth is that you still don't know what TAI, GPS-time >>>> and UTC are. You don't even know what is a coordinate time in >>>> the non rotating Earth-centred frame of reference. >>>> >>>> To my statement: >>>> "The TAI network, which is the base of UTC and the time >>>> zones, could not work without atomic clocks with the inbuilt >>>> SI-definition of second." >>>> >>>> You responded: >>>> "Sorry, that is not any fact, that's >>>> a very impudent lie, expected of course from >>>> a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they >>>> surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if >>>> they tried, they would soon loose the >>>> synchronization - will you deny?" >>>> >>>> (I suppose ISo should be SI) :-D >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> Quite. >>>> You claim that SR and GR are nonsense, >>>> and the units defined by SI are never used, >>>> >>>> All educated physicists know that SR and GR are >>>> valid theories which never are falsified. >>>> >>>> There is nothing wrong about being ignorant of physics, >>>> most people are. >>>> But sane people who know they are ignorant of physics, >>>> will not claim that physicists are wrong. >>>> >>>> You have demonstrated that you are ignorant of elementary >>>> physics. You also don't know elementary logic, as demonstrated >>>> in the following: >>>> >>>> Den 21.08.2025 23:32, skrev Maciej Wo?niak: >>>> > On 8/21/2025 9:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> One simple question: >>>> >> >>>> >> A clock running according to the SI definition of second >>>> >> will, when it is on the ground, stay in sync with the UTC. >>>> >> >>>> >> But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be >>>> >> adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to stay in sync with UTC. >>>> >> >>>> >> Why is that? >>>> > >>>> > That's because the clocks are ruled by >>>> > common sense, not by some religious maniacs >>>> > mumbling about some delusional "laws of >>>> > nature" allegedly forcing these clocks >>>> > to run desynchronized. >>>> >>>> I will not offend the reader by explaining what is >>>> the only logical conclusion. >>>> >>>> So you see, Maciej, when you claim to be smarter than >>>> Einstein, and that all experimental physicists are >>>> "brainwashed religious maniacs", then you must take >>>> the beatingyou get in this forum. >>>> >>>> However, since it may be said to be unethical to pester >>>> a person with your mental problems, I will not respond >>>> to you any more. >>>> >>>> Now you can keep shouting statements like: >>>> >>>> "You may announce a sheep to be a 'proper shark', >>>> but it won't affect the real shark. >>>> Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not >>>> affecting the real time - which is NOT a >>>> physical entity, but a cultural one, and >>>> remains non-local and bound to Earth and >>>> Solar System." >>>> >>>> or: >>>> >>>> "It's not any experimental evidence, it's >>>> just some assertions of a bunch of brainwashed >>>> religious maniacs, unfortunately." >>>> >>>> or: >>>> >>>> "Yes, sure, when we only have a theory >>>> of angels pushing - the movements of >>>> planets confirms; when we only have a >>>> theory of Zeus The Thunderer - thunders confirm; >>>> that's the logic of a relativistic idiot." >>>> >>>> or: >>>> >>>> "Paul, poor trah, there is no evidence, there >>>> is just an ignorant idiot asserting about >>>> having unfailable evidence, spitting and >>>> slandering." >>>> >>>> or: >>>> >>>> "Paul, poor trash, your idiot guru has predicted >>>> deflection of space and spacetime, not deflection >>>> of light. Do you understand the difference? >>>> Of course, not. Poincare could explain it to you, >>>> but you're too dumb for Poincare. >>>> Anyway, even you and your fellow cultists are >>>> not stupid enough to accept the insane schema >>>> of your insane guru, and that's where "light >>>> deflection" came from." >>>> >>>> or: >>>> >>>> "You may easily write a definition of a shark >>>> as a grass eater - but it won't force real >>>> sharks to eat grass. Sorry, trash. You may >>>> try, of course, enforcing your absurd >>>> newspeak on the rest of the world. But it's >>>> not as easy as Orwell wrote, and your church >>>> is too stupid to succeed anyway." >>>> >>>> or: >>>> >>>> "Rave and spit, trash, the facts won't go away. >>>> The real measurement results are not matching >>>> your beloved Shit and you're even stupid >>>> enough to admit it occasionally." >>>> >>>> or: >>>> >>>> "No, TAI second is NOT your SI idiocy. >>>> If they applied your idiocy they would >>>> have no synchronization." >>>> >>>> or: >>>> >>>> "That's what SI definition was invented >>>> for - enforcing fulfilling those moronic >>>> prophecies about desynchronized (not >>>> indicating t'=t) clocks. Of course - >>>> The Shit had never any real chance for >>>> that. It was obvious it's mad commands >>>> will be ignored, common sense has been >>>> warning." >>>> >>>> ... I will not ridicule you because I won't see it. >>>> >>>> >>>> < *PLUNK* > >>>> >>>> Have a nice life! >>> >>> I greatly admire your patience, for this long, >>> and your ability to suffer fools gladly. >>> >>> I gave up on him months ago, >> >> You've run crying, >> and Paul soon will too. > > Delusion is too weak of a word. OK, maybe Paul is indeed too dumb to run. > >> poor trash > > Nice signature!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-18 14:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <9bTyQ.27309$Ft95.20931@fx16.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666127 |
Den 17.09.2025 21:00, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 9/17/2025 8:11 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> You are obviously much smarter than Einstein. > I obviously am. >> He thought that time could be measured with clocks! > Clocks have more important things to do We leave it at that. :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Neury Wronski <uuks@wieisrow.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-18 16:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ahc7o$3vr1p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666127 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> He thought that time could be measured with clocks! > > Clocks have more important things to do than your childish "let's > explain" game. > You may accept this fact or not, it doesn't affect it, sorry, poor > trash. this is blatantly incorrect, overbebly 𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗵𝗲𝘀_𝗮_𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲_𝗹𝗼𝘄_𝗼𝗻_𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆_𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀_𝗮_𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹_𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲_ https://www.bi%74%63%68%75te.com/video/zkHMhh9Qv2wE
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 10:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <84jgckt7673ndj1fa4s2inm412265qulfg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666074 |
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 14:17:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >Den 15.09.2025 11:48, skrev Maciej Wo?niak: >> You may announce a sheep to be a "proper shark", >> but it won't affect the real shark. >> >> Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not >> affecting the real time - which is NOT a >> physical entity, but a cultural one, and >> remains non-local and bound to Earth and >> Solar System. >> >> May be ugly, but works; binding time to >> an observer and local Cs radiation may be >> beautiful and symmetrical, but doesn't >> work. >> > >Tanks for your very wise lecture about time. >But it is something I don't understand, >so can you please enlighten me? > >My questions are: >1. Can you measure "the real time"? > >if yes: > >2. How do you measure "the real time"? It is much much easier to measure imaginary time then it is to measure real time since real time doesn't exist... and numbers don't exist either. That is WHY there is no equation for real-time. All numbers are imaginary...i Numbers don't exist. Anybody know what the real time is now? i tink i'm late. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 21:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10a9p1v$24vri$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666083 |
Am 15.09.2025 um 19:42 schrieb The Starmaker: > ... real time doesn't exist... > and numbers don't exist either. Yeah, actually, NOTHING exits. Satisfied? . . .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 21:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10a9p3h$24vri$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666083 |
Am 15.09.2025 um 19:42 schrieb The Starmaker: > ... real time doesn't exist... > and numbers don't exist either. Yeah, actually, NOTHING exists. Satisfied? . . .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 15:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <r86hckto87j764mrs6853hv8kgt42qu5c6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666083 |
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 10:42:52 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 14:17:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" ><relativity@paulba.no> wrote: > >>Den 15.09.2025 11:48, skrev Maciej Wo?niak: >>> You may announce a sheep to be a "proper shark", >>> but it won't affect the real shark. >>> >>> Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not >>> affecting the real time - which is NOT a >>> physical entity, but a cultural one, and >>> remains non-local and bound to Earth and >>> Solar System. >>> >>> May be ugly, but works; binding time to >>> an observer and local Cs radiation may be >>> beautiful and symmetrical, but doesn't >>> work. >>> >> >>Tanks for your very wise lecture about time. >>But it is something I don't understand, >>so can you please enlighten me? >> >>My questions are: >>1. Can you measure "the real time"? >> >>if yes: >> >>2. How do you measure "the real time"? > >It is much much easier to measure imaginary time then it is to measure >real time since real time doesn't exist... >and numbers don't exist either. > >That is WHY there is no equation for real-time. > >All numbers are imaginary...i > >Numbers don't exist. > >Anybody know what the real time is now? Does anybody got the real time now???? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-16 06:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1865aa6741693d53$358075$2996671$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666101 |
On 9/16/2025 12:57 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 10:42:52 -0700, The Starmaker > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 14:17:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >> >>> Den 15.09.2025 11:48, skrev Maciej Wo?niak: >>>> You may announce a sheep to be a "proper shark", >>>> but it won't affect the real shark. >>>> >>>> Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not >>>> affecting the real time - which is NOT a >>>> physical entity, but a cultural one, and >>>> remains non-local and bound to Earth and >>>> Solar System. >>>> >>>> May be ugly, but works; binding time to >>>> an observer and local Cs radiation may be >>>> beautiful and symmetrical, but doesn't >>>> work. >>>> >>> >>> Tanks for your very wise lecture about time. >>> But it is something I don't understand, >>> so can you please enlighten me? >>> >>> My questions are: >>> 1. Can you measure "the real time"? >>> >>> if yes: >>> >>> 2. How do you measure "the real time"? >> >> It is much much easier to measure imaginary time then it is to measure >> real time since real time doesn't exist... >> and numbers don't exist either. >> >> That is WHY there is no equation for real-time. >> >> All numbers are imaginary...i >> >> Numbers don't exist. >> >> Anybody know what the real time is now? > > Does anybody got the real time now???? UTC, TAI, zone times, some others, but none of them dilates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-16 08:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <misf54F1nfkU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666074 |
Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 15.09.2025 11:48, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> You may announce a sheep to be a "proper shark", >> but it won't affect the real shark. >> >> Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not >> affecting the real time - which is NOT a >> physical entity, but a cultural one, and >> remains non-local and bound to Earth and >> Solar System. >> >> May be ugly, but works; binding time to >> an observer and local Cs radiation may be >> beautiful and symmetrical, but doesn't >> work. >> > > Tanks for your very wise lecture about time. > But it is something I don't understand, > so can you please enlighten me? > > My questions are: > 1. Can you measure "the real time"? The measure 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a beginning and an end. This is so because time is based on the idea of counting events of known frequency. And counting starts with 'one, two, three...'. The end of this process is the time of the event in question. Usually the used clock has some internal means to calculate user friendly outputs, which we call 'current time'. But mainly it is based on some sort of oscillator with known frequency and some sort of 'computer', which generates the output. Since this principle requires always a starting point, we negotiated 'universal' starting points on Earth. Of those there are several in use on Earth, mainly the supposed birth of Jesus Christ. Other events are also possible, while also questionable. Jesus for instance was most like born much earlier and was most likely not named 'Jesus'. As far as this is know, 'Jesus' is based on a Greek name, while the actually meant person was (most likely) a Jew who spoke Aramaic, hence certainly had no Greek name. Similar with other 'starting points', especially the 'big bang', because most likely 'big-bangs' are 'relative'. TH ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-16 12:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bdfjckh5vru8kqq7vfeieaau4m93v1frtd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666105 |
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 08:46:02 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 15.09.2025 11:48, skrev Maciej Wo?niak: >>> You may announce a sheep to be a "proper shark", >>> but it won't affect the real shark. >>> >>> Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not >>> affecting the real time - which is NOT a >>> physical entity, but a cultural one, and >>> remains non-local and bound to Earth and >>> Solar System. >>> >>> May be ugly, but works; binding time to >>> an observer and local Cs radiation may be >>> beautiful and symmetrical, but doesn't >>> work. >>> >> >> Tanks for your very wise lecture about time. >> But it is something I don't understand, >> so can you please enlighten me? >> >> My questions are: >> 1. Can you measure "the real time"? > >The measure 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a beginning >and an end. > >This is so because time is based on the idea of counting events of known >frequency. > >And counting starts with 'one, two, three...'. > >The end of this process is the time of the event in question. > >Usually the used clock has some internal means to calculate user >friendly outputs, which we call 'current time'. > >But mainly it is based on some sort of oscillator with known frequency >and some sort of 'computer', which generates the output. > >Since this principle requires always a starting point, we negotiated >'universal' starting points on Earth. > >Of those there are several in use on Earth, mainly the supposed birth of >Jesus Christ. > >Other events are also possible, while also questionable. > >Jesus for instance was most like born much earlier and was most likely >not named 'Jesus'. > >As far as this is know, 'Jesus' is based on a Greek name, while the >actually meant person was (most likely) a Jew who spoke Aramaic, hence >certainly had no Greek name. > >Similar with other 'starting points', especially the 'big bang', because >most likely 'big-bangs' are 'relative'. > > >TH > > >... Okay, I'll explain it... 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' "... 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a beginning... " So, 'In the beginning, ...' contains the first interval, the event, then the second interval, and so on till the end. Now, Before the beginning..there were no intervals, yet you still had time, but without intervals. The Big Bang was the creation of intervals. 'In the beginning, ... -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-17 08:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <miv451Ffbi4U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666117 |
Am Dienstag000016, 16.09.2025 um 21:53 schrieb The Starmaker: > On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 08:46:02 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> > wrote: > >> Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 15.09.2025 11:48, skrev Maciej Wo?niak: >>>> You may announce a sheep to be a "proper shark", >>>> but it won't affect the real shark. >>>> >>>> Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not >>>> affecting the real time - which is NOT a >>>> physical entity, but a cultural one, and >>>> remains non-local and bound to Earth and >>>> Solar System. >>>> >>>> May be ugly, but works; binding time to >>>> an observer and local Cs radiation may be >>>> beautiful and symmetrical, but doesn't >>>> work. >>>> >>> >>> Tanks for your very wise lecture about time. >>> But it is something I don't understand, >>> so can you please enlighten me? >>> >>> My questions are: >>> 1. Can you measure "the real time"? >> >> The measure 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a beginning >> and an end. >> >> This is so because time is based on the idea of counting events of known >> frequency. >> >> And counting starts with 'one, two, three...'. >> >> The end of this process is the time of the event in question. >> >> Usually the used clock has some internal means to calculate user >> friendly outputs, which we call 'current time'. >> >> But mainly it is based on some sort of oscillator with known frequency >> and some sort of 'computer', which generates the output. >> >> Since this principle requires always a starting point, we negotiated >> 'universal' starting points on Earth. >> >> Of those there are several in use on Earth, mainly the supposed birth of >> Jesus Christ. >> >> Other events are also possible, while also questionable. >> >> Jesus for instance was most like born much earlier and was most likely >> not named 'Jesus'. >> >> As far as this is know, 'Jesus' is based on a Greek name, while the >> actually meant person was (most likely) a Jew who spoke Aramaic, hence >> certainly had no Greek name. >> >> Similar with other 'starting points', especially the 'big bang', because >> most likely 'big-bangs' are 'relative'. >> >> >> TH >> >> >> ... > > Okay, I'll explain it... > > 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' > > "... 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a beginning..." > > So, 'In the beginning, ...' contains the first interval, the event, > then the second interval, and so on till the end. > > Now, Before the beginning..there were no intervals, yet you still had > time, but without intervals. > The Big Bang was the creation of intervals. > > 'In the beginning, ... So, you wanted to start the beginning of everything at the beginning of everything? Right? But I do actually believe in different timelines, where even the direction of time can be different. This would make it conceptually difficult to define 'beginning' in the first place. Most likely the universe has no beginning (and no end), while certain substructures have. Those substructureds with beginning and end are called by us human beings 'everything' (or 'universe'), even if that ain't actually correct. It's only everything, what we can see. But way more does exist than what we can see. TH>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-17 20:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <Q1DyQ.32880$sIU2.11261@fx17.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666105 |
Den 16.09.2025 08:46, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> >> My questions are: >> 1. Can you measure "the real time"? > > The measure 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a beginning > and an end. > > This is so because time is based on the idea of counting events of known > frequency. > > And counting starts with 'one, two, three...'. > > The end of this process is the time of the event in question. > > Usually the used clock has some internal means to calculate user > friendly outputs, which we call 'current time'. > > But mainly it is based on some sort of oscillator with known frequency > and some sort of 'computer', which generates the output. > > Since this principle requires always a starting point, we negotiated > 'universal' starting points on Earth. > > Of those there are several in use on Earth, mainly the supposed birth of > Jesus Christ. > > Other events are also possible, while also questionable. > > Jesus for instance was most like born much earlier and was most likely > not named 'Jesus'. > > As far as this is know, 'Jesus' is based on a Greek name, while the > actually meant person was (most likely) a Jew who spoke Aramaic, hence > certainly had no Greek name. > > Similar with other 'starting points', especially the 'big bang', because > most likely 'big-bangs' are 'relative'. > > Does this mean that time is measurable? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web