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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #420911 > unrolled thread

Do you like gedanken?

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

Contents

  Do you like gedanken? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-29 04:38 -0700
    Re: Do you like gedanken? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 14:54 +0000
      Re: Do you like gedanken? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-29 09:08 -0700
        Re: Do you like gedanken? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 00:31 +0000
          Re: Do you like gedanken? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-29 23:31 -0700
            Re: Do you like gedanken? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 11:11 +0000
              Re: Do you like gedanken? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-30 05:39 -0700
                Re: Do you like gedanken? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 15:42 +0200
                  Re: Do you like gedanken? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-30 06:58 -0700
                    Re: Do you like gedanken? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-30 14:22 +0000
                      Re: Do you like gedanken? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-30 11:01 -0700
                    Re: Do you like gedanken? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 18:45 +0200
                      Re: Do you like gedanken? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-30 11:19 -0700
                Re: Do you like gedanken? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 14:55 +0000
                  Re: Do you like gedanken? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-30 11:14 -0700
                    Re: Do you like gedanken? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 18:30 +0000
                      Re: Do you like gedanken? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-30 11:55 -0700
                        Re: Do you like gedanken? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 19:30 +0000
                          Re: Do you like gedanken? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-30 13:29 -0700
                            Re: Do you like gedanken? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 20:49 +0000
                              Re: Do you like gedanken? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-30 14:08 -0700
                                Re: Do you like gedanken? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 22:35 +0000
                                  Re: Do you like gedanken? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-30 23:50 -0700
                                    Re: Do you like gedanken? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 12:59 +0000
                                      Re: Do you like gedanken? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-31 06:36 -0700
                                        Re: Do you like gedanken? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-31 14:27 +0000
                            Re: Do you like gedanken? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-31 03:29 +0000
                              Re: Do you like gedanken? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-30 23:52 -0700
                                Re: Do you like gedanken? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 12:59 +0000
                                Re: Do you like gedanken? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-31 14:17 +0000
                                  Re: Do you like gedanken? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-31 08:22 -0700
      Re: Do you like gedanken? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-29 18:18 +0000
        Re: Do you like gedanken? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-29 12:42 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#420911 — Do you like gedanken?

Suppose the bureaucrates from ISO get conscious
and return to old, day-related second.
What will happen then: your Shit will make a quiet
"pyf!" and vanish.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#420926

<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> Suppose the bureaucrates from ISO get conscious
> and return to old, day-related second.
> What will happen then: your Shit will make a quiet
> "pyf!" and vanish.
> 
> 
> 

What on earth would be the advantage of returning to a day-based second?

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#420942

W dniu poniedziałek, 29 maja 2017 16:54:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > Suppose the bureaucrates from ISO get conscious
> > and return to old, day-related second.
> > What will happen then: your Shit will make a quiet
> > "pyf!" and vanish.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> What on earth would be the advantage of returning to a day-based second?

You can ask GPS designers, UTC designers or 
TAI designers.
But you won't understand the answer anyway.

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

#420997

<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 29 maja 2017 16:54:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> Suppose the bureaucrates from ISO get conscious
>>> and return to old, day-related second.
>>> What will happen then: your Shit will make a quiet
>>> "pyf!" and vanish.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> What on earth would be the advantage of returning to a day-based second?
> 
> You can ask GPS designers, UTC designers or 
> TAI designers.
> But you won't understand the answer anyway.
> 

I'm asking you. Can you come up with a coherent reason?

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#421021

W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 02:31:39 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > W dniu poniedziałek, 29 maja 2017 16:54:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>> Suppose the bureaucrates from ISO get conscious
> >>> and return to old, day-related second.
> >>> What will happen then: your Shit will make a quiet
> >>> "pyf!" and vanish.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> What on earth would be the advantage of returning to a day-based second?
> > 
> > You can ask GPS designers, UTC designers or 
> > TAI designers.
> > But you won't understand the answer anyway.
> > 
> 
> I'm asking you. Can you come up with a coherent reason?

Listen, halfbrain. The question is about the way a 
human brain makes its decisions. Do you realize it? Or
are you too stupid even for that?
It's a complicated subject, and you have NO BASICS. 
Neither your toys, nor your moronic physics knows 
ANYTHING about it. All  you have is your moronic 
arrogance believing that nothing can surprise a 
true follower of The Shit. 
Explaining you anything is a waste of time. I've 
tried some times, and I know your reaction. "hahaha,
can't be, my gurus have never spoken of that". 

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

#421026

<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 02:31:39 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 29 maja 2017 16:54:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>> Suppose the bureaucrates from ISO get conscious
>>>>> and return to old, day-related second.
>>>>> What will happen then: your Shit will make a quiet
>>>>> "pyf!" and vanish.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> What on earth would be the advantage of returning to a day-based second?
>>> 
>>> You can ask GPS designers, UTC designers or 
>>> TAI designers.
>>> But you won't understand the answer anyway.
>>> 
>> 
>> I'm asking you. Can you come up with a coherent reason?
> 
> Listen, halfbrain. The question is about the way a 
> human brain makes its decisions. Do you realize it? Or
> are you too stupid even for that?
> It's a complicated subject, and you have NO BASICS. 
> Neither your toys, nor your moronic physics knows 
> ANYTHING about it. All  you have is your moronic 
> arrogance believing that nothing can surprise a 
> true follower of The Shit. 
> Explaining you anything is a waste of time. I've 
> tried some times, and I know your reaction. "hahaha,
> can't be, my gurus have never spoken of that". 
> 

I don't see any coherent reason in that. I don't even see an attempt. All I
see is you saying, it's complicated. 

Too complicated to form and express a coherent reason?

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#421037

W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 13:11:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 02:31:39 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>> W dniu poniedziałek, 29 maja 2017 16:54:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>>>> Suppose the bureaucrates from ISO get conscious
> >>>>> and return to old, day-related second.
> >>>>> What will happen then: your Shit will make a quiet
> >>>>> "pyf!" and vanish.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> What on earth would be the advantage of returning to a day-based second?
> >>> 
> >>> You can ask GPS designers, UTC designers or 
> >>> TAI designers.
> >>> But you won't understand the answer anyway.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> I'm asking you. Can you come up with a coherent reason?
> > 
> > Listen, halfbrain. The question is about the way a 
> > human brain makes its decisions. Do you realize it? Or
> > are you too stupid even for that?
> > It's a complicated subject, and you have NO BASICS. 
> > Neither your toys, nor your moronic physics knows 
> > ANYTHING about it. All  you have is your moronic 
> > arrogance believing that nothing can surprise a 
> > true follower of The Shit. 
> > Explaining you anything is a waste of time. I've 
> > tried some times, and I know your reaction. "hahaha,
> > can't be, my gurus have never spoken of that". 
> > 
> 
> I don't see any coherent reason in that. I don't even see an attempt. 

Yes, I know. 
OK. I will try:
because, in opposition to a Cs click, a day is
-important
-visible
-easy to count
Satisfied, poor idiot?

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

#421042

On 05/30/2017 02:39 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 13:11:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 02:31:39 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 29 maja 2017 16:54:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>>>> Suppose the bureaucrates from ISO get conscious
>>>>>>> and return to old, day-related second.
>>>>>>> What will happen then: your Shit will make a quiet
>>>>>>> "pyf!" and vanish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What on earth would be the advantage of returning to a day-based second?
>>>>>
>>>>> You can ask GPS designers, UTC designers or
>>>>> TAI designers.
>>>>> But you won't understand the answer anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm asking you. Can you come up with a coherent reason?
>>>
>>> Listen, halfbrain. The question is about the way a
>>> human brain makes its decisions. Do you realize it? Or
>>> are you too stupid even for that?
>>> It's a complicated subject, and you have NO BASICS.
>>> Neither your toys, nor your moronic physics knows
>>> ANYTHING about it. All  you have is your moronic
>>> arrogance believing that nothing can surprise a
>>> true follower of The Shit.
>>> Explaining you anything is a waste of time. I've
>>> tried some times, and I know your reaction. "hahaha,
>>> can't be, my gurus have never spoken of that".
>>>
>>
>> I don't see any coherent reason in that. I don't even see an attempt.
>
> Yes, I know.
> OK. I will try:
> because, in opposition to a Cs click, a day is
> -important
> -visible
> -easy to count
> Satisfied, poor idiot?
>

Similarly, we should redefine a unit of length
as a length of a loaf of bread.

Because bread is
  - important
  - visible
  - easy to count.

The car is long 10 +/- 2 loaves.
Who cares about reproducibility and accuracy ?


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#421045

W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 15:42:40 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
> On 05/30/2017 02:39 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 13:11:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 02:31:39 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 29 maja 2017 16:54:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Suppose the bureaucrates from ISO get conscious
> >>>>>>> and return to old, day-related second.
> >>>>>>> What will happen then: your Shit will make a quiet
> >>>>>>> "pyf!" and vanish.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What on earth would be the advantage of returning to a day-based second?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can ask GPS designers, UTC designers or
> >>>>> TAI designers.
> >>>>> But you won't understand the answer anyway.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm asking you. Can you come up with a coherent reason?
> >>>
> >>> Listen, halfbrain. The question is about the way a
> >>> human brain makes its decisions. Do you realize it? Or
> >>> are you too stupid even for that?
> >>> It's a complicated subject, and you have NO BASICS.
> >>> Neither your toys, nor your moronic physics knows
> >>> ANYTHING about it. All  you have is your moronic
> >>> arrogance believing that nothing can surprise a
> >>> true follower of The Shit.
> >>> Explaining you anything is a waste of time. I've
> >>> tried some times, and I know your reaction. "hahaha,
> >>> can't be, my gurus have never spoken of that".
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't see any coherent reason in that. I don't even see an attempt.
> >
> > Yes, I know.
> > OK. I will try:
> > because, in opposition to a Cs click, a day is
> > -important
> > -visible
> > -easy to count
> > Satisfied, poor idiot?
> >
> 
> Similarly, we should redefine a unit of length
> as a length of a loaf of bread.

Maybe we should, But we won't.

> Who cares about reproducibility and accuracy ? 

GPS ecgineers do, for instance. That's why they
set their clocks to ignore your idiocy and
match the day cycle instead. Didn't they,
poor idiot?

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

#421050

mlwozniak@wp.pl writes:

>> Similarly, we should redefine a unit of length
>> as a length of a loaf of bread.

>Maybe we should, But we won't.

So if we won't redefine a unit of length as a length of a loaf of bread,
why would anyone want to redefine a second as 1/86,400 of a variable
length day?

>> Who cares about reproducibility and accuracy ?

>GPS ecgineers do, for instance. That's why they
>set their clocks to ignore your idiocy and
>match the day cycle instead. Didn't they,
>poor idiot?

No, they did not.

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

#421076

W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 16:22:32 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał:
> mlwozniak@wp.pl writes:
> 
> >> Similarly, we should redefine a unit of length
> >> as a length of a loaf of bread.
> 
> >Maybe we should, But we won't.
> 
> So if we won't redefine a unit of length as a length of a loaf of bread,
> why would anyone want to redefine a second as 1/86,400 of a variable
> length day?

1)"redefine a second" is in this case what your 
bunch of fanatics is trying to do. 
2)it won't work, because, in opposition to a 
Cs click, a day is 
-important 
-visible 
-easy to count 


> >> Who cares about reproducibility and accuracy ?
> 
> >GPS ecgineers do, for instance. That's why they
> >set their clocks to ignore your idiocy and
> >match the day cycle instead. Didn't they,
> >poor idiot?
> 
> No, they did not.

A lie, as expected from a fanatic trash. 
And quite easy to check.

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

#421069

On 05/30/2017 03:58 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 15:42:40 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

>>>
>>> Yes, I know.
>>> OK. I will try:
>>> because, in opposition to a Cs click, a day is
>>> -important
>>> -visible
>>> -easy to count
>>> Satisfied, poor idiot?
>>>
>>
>> Similarly, we should redefine a unit of length
>> as a length of a loaf of bread.
>
> Maybe we should, But we won't.
>
>> Who cares about reproducibility and accuracy ?

Sarcasm was involved.

> GPS ecgineers do, for instance. That's why they
> set their clocks to ignore your idiocy and
> match the day cycle instead. Didn't they,
> poor idiot?

Not they do not. Day based socond is useless
with its poor accuracy and substantial drift
for GPS high precission demend.

GMT(UT), UTC and TAI are 3 different time scales.

BTW, you must be an idiot,
calling others poor idiots to feel superior over them.
Normal people would be more than satisfied with fools.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#421079

W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 18:45:18 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
> On 05/30/2017 03:58 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 15:42:40 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
> 
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I know.
> >>> OK. I will try:
> >>> because, in opposition to a Cs click, a day is
> >>> -important
> >>> -visible
> >>> -easy to count
> >>> Satisfied, poor idiot?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Similarly, we should redefine a unit of length
> >> as a length of a loaf of bread.
> >
> > Maybe we should, But we won't.
> >
> >> Who cares about reproducibility and accuracy ?
> 
> Sarcasm was involved.
> 
> > GPS ecgineers do, for instance. That's why they
> > set their clocks to ignore your idiocy and
> > match the day cycle instead. Didn't they,
> > poor idiot?
> 
> Not they do not. Day based socond is useless
> with its poor accuracy and substantial drift
> for GPS high precission demend.

Keep  dreaming, poor idiot. 
 
> GMT(UT), UTC and TAI are 3 different time scales.

But nobody serious uses your guru's "local time" 
idiocy.


> BTW, you must be an idiot,
> calling others poor idiots to feel superior over them.

BTW, you must be an idiot,
calling others  idiots to feel superior over them.

> Normal people would be more than satisfied with fools.

No, poor idiot, they wouldn't be.

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

#421056

<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 13:11:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 02:31:39 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 29 maja 2017 16:54:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>>>> Suppose the bureaucrates from ISO get conscious
>>>>>>> and return to old, day-related second.
>>>>>>> What will happen then: your Shit will make a quiet
>>>>>>> "pyf!" and vanish.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What on earth would be the advantage of returning to a day-based second?
>>>>> 
>>>>> You can ask GPS designers, UTC designers or 
>>>>> TAI designers.
>>>>> But you won't understand the answer anyway.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I'm asking you. Can you come up with a coherent reason?
>>> 
>>> Listen, halfbrain. The question is about the way a 
>>> human brain makes its decisions. Do you realize it? Or
>>> are you too stupid even for that?
>>> It's a complicated subject, and you have NO BASICS. 
>>> Neither your toys, nor your moronic physics knows 
>>> ANYTHING about it. All  you have is your moronic 
>>> arrogance believing that nothing can surprise a 
>>> true follower of The Shit. 
>>> Explaining you anything is a waste of time. I've 
>>> tried some times, and I know your reaction. "hahaha,
>>> can't be, my gurus have never spoken of that". 
>>> 
>> 
>> I don't see any coherent reason in that. I don't even see an attempt. 
> 
> Yes, I know. 
> OK. I will try:
> because, in opposition to a Cs click, a day is
> -important
> -visible
> -easy to count
> Satisfied, poor idiot?
> 

Your metrics of quality would also favor the cubit as the standard of
length. Based on the forearm, it meets all the criteria you have laid out
as advantageous. Unfortunately it meets none of the criteria that engineers
and scientists hold as more important than your personal thoughts:
stability, precision, reproducibility. It may occur to you that there is a
valid reason the cubit is no longer in use as a standard unit. Or maybe it
won't occur to you, since you seem to favor a return to basic Aristotelian
analysis of the world. 

I think you'd be much happier in a different age. Some century far removed
from this one, in fact. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#421078

W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 16:55:46 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 13:11:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 02:31:39 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 29 maja 2017 16:54:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Suppose the bureaucrates from ISO get conscious
> >>>>>>> and return to old, day-related second.
> >>>>>>> What will happen then: your Shit will make a quiet
> >>>>>>> "pyf!" and vanish.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> What on earth would be the advantage of returning to a day-based second?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> You can ask GPS designers, UTC designers or 
> >>>>> TAI designers.
> >>>>> But you won't understand the answer anyway.
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> I'm asking you. Can you come up with a coherent reason?
> >>> 
> >>> Listen, halfbrain. The question is about the way a 
> >>> human brain makes its decisions. Do you realize it? Or
> >>> are you too stupid even for that?
> >>> It's a complicated subject, and you have NO BASICS. 
> >>> Neither your toys, nor your moronic physics knows 
> >>> ANYTHING about it. All  you have is your moronic 
> >>> arrogance believing that nothing can surprise a 
> >>> true follower of The Shit. 
> >>> Explaining you anything is a waste of time. I've 
> >>> tried some times, and I know your reaction. "hahaha,
> >>> can't be, my gurus have never spoken of that". 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> I don't see any coherent reason in that. I don't even see an attempt. 
> > 
> > Yes, I know. 
> > OK. I will try:
> > because, in opposition to a Cs click, a day is
> > -important
> > -visible
> > -easy to count
> > Satisfied, poor idiot?
> > 
> 
> Your metrics of quality would also favor the cubit as the standard of
> length.

No, poor idiot, it wouldn't.

> Based on the forearm, it meets all the criteria you have laid out
> as advantageous. 

Yes, it does. 

> Unfortunately it meets none of the criteria that engineers
> and scientists hold as more important than your personal thoughts:

Instead telling an engineer tales of the criteria he 
holds, you really should stick to your toys and
tables, poor arrogant idiot. 
But, true, the calculus of advantages and disadvantages is 
against cubit. 
It's also against your idiocy, unfortunately. You can
check it at GPS.


> I think you'd be much happier in a different age. Some century far removed
> from this one, in fact. 

Don't try to think. Thinking requires common sense
and you don't have it.

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

#421081

<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 16:55:46 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 13:11:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 02:31:39 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 29 maja 2017 16:54:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Suppose the bureaucrates from ISO get conscious
>>>>>>>>> and return to old, day-related second.
>>>>>>>>> What will happen then: your Shit will make a quiet
>>>>>>>>> "pyf!" and vanish.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What on earth would be the advantage of returning to a day-based second?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You can ask GPS designers, UTC designers or 
>>>>>>> TAI designers.
>>>>>>> But you won't understand the answer anyway.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm asking you. Can you come up with a coherent reason?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Listen, halfbrain. The question is about the way a 
>>>>> human brain makes its decisions. Do you realize it? Or
>>>>> are you too stupid even for that?
>>>>> It's a complicated subject, and you have NO BASICS. 
>>>>> Neither your toys, nor your moronic physics knows 
>>>>> ANYTHING about it. All  you have is your moronic 
>>>>> arrogance believing that nothing can surprise a 
>>>>> true follower of The Shit. 
>>>>> Explaining you anything is a waste of time. I've 
>>>>> tried some times, and I know your reaction. "hahaha,
>>>>> can't be, my gurus have never spoken of that". 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I don't see any coherent reason in that. I don't even see an attempt. 
>>> 
>>> Yes, I know. 
>>> OK. I will try:
>>> because, in opposition to a Cs click, a day is
>>> -important
>>> -visible
>>> -easy to count
>>> Satisfied, poor idiot?
>>> 
>> 
>> Your metrics of quality would also favor the cubit as the standard of
>> length.
> 
> No, poor idiot, it wouldn't.
> 
>> Based on the forearm, it meets all the criteria you have laid out
>> as advantageous. 
> 
> Yes, it does. 

Which shows the poor value of your criteria. 

> 
>> Unfortunately it meets none of the criteria that engineers
>> and scientists hold as more important than your personal thoughts:
> 
> Instead telling an engineer tales of the criteria he 
> holds, you really should stick to your toys and
> tables, poor arrogant idiot. 

What engineers advocate is written down by them. Previously you stated that
your fellow engineers have been deceived or deluded. 

> But, true, the calculus of advantages and disadvantages is 
> against cubit. 

Exactly. The cubit lacks stability, reproducibility, and precision. So does
a day-based second, which is the reason it hasn't been used in a very long
time. Neither has the cubit. 

> It's also against your idiocy, unfortunately. You can
> check it at GPS.
> 
> 
>> I think you'd be much happier in a different age. Some century far removed
>> from this one, in fact. 
> 
> Don't try to think. Thinking requires common sense
> and you don't have it.

Well, there you go touting the virtues of a failure-prone tool again. Not a
sound strategy. 

 

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#421087

W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 20:30:50 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 16:55:46 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 13:11:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 02:31:39 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 29 maja 2017 16:54:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Suppose the bureaucrates from ISO get conscious
> >>>>>>>>> and return to old, day-related second.
> >>>>>>>>> What will happen then: your Shit will make a quiet
> >>>>>>>>> "pyf!" and vanish.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> What on earth would be the advantage of returning to a day-based second?
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> You can ask GPS designers, UTC designers or 
> >>>>>>> TAI designers.
> >>>>>>> But you won't understand the answer anyway.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I'm asking you. Can you come up with a coherent reason?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Listen, halfbrain. The question is about the way a 
> >>>>> human brain makes its decisions. Do you realize it? Or
> >>>>> are you too stupid even for that?
> >>>>> It's a complicated subject, and you have NO BASICS. 
> >>>>> Neither your toys, nor your moronic physics knows 
> >>>>> ANYTHING about it. All  you have is your moronic 
> >>>>> arrogance believing that nothing can surprise a 
> >>>>> true follower of The Shit. 
> >>>>> Explaining you anything is a waste of time. I've 
> >>>>> tried some times, and I know your reaction. "hahaha,
> >>>>> can't be, my gurus have never spoken of that". 
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> I don't see any coherent reason in that. I don't even see an attempt. 
> >>> 
> >>> Yes, I know. 
> >>> OK. I will try:
> >>> because, in opposition to a Cs click, a day is
> >>> -important
> >>> -visible
> >>> -easy to count
> >>> Satisfied, poor idiot?
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> Your metrics of quality would also favor the cubit as the standard of
> >> length.
> > 
> > No, poor idiot, it wouldn't.
> > 
> >> Based on the forearm, it meets all the criteria you have laid out
> >> as advantageous. 
> > 
> > Yes, it does. 
> 
> Which shows the poor value of your criteria. 

Poor idiot. Your gurus haven't told you:(
Real solutions from real words have always
a couple of advantages and a couple of 
disadvantages. They can be different, they
can have different importance, they can be
combined in differen proportions, but finally
a good construction should have as much of
(different) advantages as possible.
Of course, it's too complicated for a relativistic
moron.

> >> Unfortunately it meets none of the criteria that engineers
> >> and scientists hold as more important than your personal thoughts:
> > 
> > Instead telling an engineer tales of the criteria he 
> > holds, you really should stick to your toys and
> > tables, poor arrogant idiot. 
> 
> What engineers advocate is written down by them.

So, ask them whether "important, visible,
easy to count" are advantageous for them or
not. You don't have to, poor idiot, eh? You
obviously know better, because you're following
The Shit of an insane guru.


> > But, true, the calculus of advantages and disadvantages is 
> > against cubit. 
> 
> Exactly. The cubit lacks stability, reproducibility, and precision. 


The cubit lacks. The day doesn't. 

> So does
> a day-based second, which is the reason it hasn't been used in a very long
> time. Neither has the cubit. 

Keep dreaming, poor idiot. Or take a look at 
GPS. You can also check UTC or TAI. NOBODY
SERIOUS is treating your "standard" of second
seriously. And even nobody unserious.

Of course, it's off topic. 
My gedanken is: 
LET"S ASSUME IT HAPPENED.
How are your "experimental" results now?

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

#421099

<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 20:30:50 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 16:55:46 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 13:11:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 02:31:39 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 29 maja 2017 16:54:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>>>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose the bureaucrates from ISO get conscious
>>>>>>>>>>> and return to old, day-related second.
>>>>>>>>>>> What will happen then: your Shit will make a quiet
>>>>>>>>>>> "pyf!" and vanish.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> What on earth would be the advantage of returning to a day-based second?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> You can ask GPS designers, UTC designers or 
>>>>>>>>> TAI designers.
>>>>>>>>> But you won't understand the answer anyway.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'm asking you. Can you come up with a coherent reason?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Listen, halfbrain. The question is about the way a 
>>>>>>> human brain makes its decisions. Do you realize it? Or
>>>>>>> are you too stupid even for that?
>>>>>>> It's a complicated subject, and you have NO BASICS. 
>>>>>>> Neither your toys, nor your moronic physics knows 
>>>>>>> ANYTHING about it. All  you have is your moronic 
>>>>>>> arrogance believing that nothing can surprise a 
>>>>>>> true follower of The Shit. 
>>>>>>> Explaining you anything is a waste of time. I've 
>>>>>>> tried some times, and I know your reaction. "hahaha,
>>>>>>> can't be, my gurus have never spoken of that". 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't see any coherent reason in that. I don't even see an attempt. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, I know. 
>>>>> OK. I will try:
>>>>> because, in opposition to a Cs click, a day is
>>>>> -important
>>>>> -visible
>>>>> -easy to count
>>>>> Satisfied, poor idiot?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Your metrics of quality would also favor the cubit as the standard of
>>>> length.
>>> 
>>> No, poor idiot, it wouldn't.
>>> 
>>>> Based on the forearm, it meets all the criteria you have laid out
>>>> as advantageous. 
>>> 
>>> Yes, it does. 
>> 
>> Which shows the poor value of your criteria. 
> 
> Poor idiot. Your gurus haven't told you:(
> Real solutions from real words have always
> a couple of advantages and a couple of 
> disadvantages. They can be different, they
> can have different importance, they can be
> combined in differen proportions, but finally
> a good construction should have as much of
> (different) advantages as possible.
> Of course, it's too complicated for a relativistic
> moron.
> 
>>>> Unfortunately it meets none of the criteria that engineers
>>>> and scientists hold as more important than your personal thoughts:
>>> 
>>> Instead telling an engineer tales of the criteria he 
>>> holds, you really should stick to your toys and
>>> tables, poor arrogant idiot. 
>> 
>> What engineers advocate is written down by them.
> 
> So, ask them whether "important, visible,
> easy to count" are advantageous for them or
> not. You don't have to, poor idiot, eh? You
> obviously know better, because you're following
> The Shit of an insane guru.
> 

That's already in what they've written.  The difference, you see, is I've
READ their discussion of the criteria, while you fly by the seat of your
pants. What's interesting about you is that if YOU personally think this or
that are the measures of value, then you believe everyone should agree. And
when they obviously don't, you splutter about losing common sense. 

You are certainly free to bluster and foam at the mouth about your lack of
respect for scientists as well as your fellow engineers (who disagree with
you). Meanwhile, the professional world will move on, leaving your and your
common sense behind. 

> 
>>> But, true, the calculus of advantages and disadvantages is 
>>> against cubit. 
>> 
>> Exactly. The cubit lacks stability, reproducibility, and precision. 
> 
> 
> The cubit lacks. The day doesn't. 

Oh, but it does. The length of the day is not stable. It is not known to
the precision now needed. Do you need some references to material written
by your fellow engineers why this is so?

> 
>> So does
>> a day-based second, which is the reason it hasn't been used in a very long
>> time. Neither has the cubit. 
> 
> Keep dreaming, poor idiot. Or take a look at 
> GPS. You can also check UTC or TAI. NOBODY
> SERIOUS is treating your "standard" of second
> seriously. And even nobody unserious.
> 
> Of course, it's off topic. 
> My gedanken is: 
> LET"S ASSUME IT HAPPENED.
> How are your "experimental" results now?
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#421111

W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 21:30:41 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> > So, ask them whether "important, visible,
> > easy to count" are advantageous for them or
> > not. You don't have to, poor idiot, eh? You
> > obviously know better, because you're following
> > The Shit of an insane guru.
> > 
> 
> That's already in what they've written. 

Have they?  You're imagining, poor idiot.
Once again. I'm an engineer. You're
a carpenter. DON"T TELL ME HOW WE
WORK. Poor idiot.

> >>> But, true, the calculus of advantages and disadvantages is 
> >>> against cubit. 
> >> 
> >> Exactly. The cubit lacks stability, reproducibility, and precision. 
> > 
> > 
> > The cubit lacks. The day doesn't. 
> 
> Oh, but it does. The length of the day is not stable. It is not known to
> the precision now needed.

Keep dreaming, poor idiot. Or take a look at GPS.
Or UTC. Or TAI. Nobody serious is treating your
idiocies seriously. Even worse. Nobody unserious,
too.

Of course, it's off topic. 
My gedanken is: 
LET"S ASSUME IT HAPPENED.
How are your "experimental" results now?

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

#421113

<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 21:30:41 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> 
>>> So, ask them whether "important, visible,
>>> easy to count" are advantageous for them or
>>> not. You don't have to, poor idiot, eh? You
>>> obviously know better, because you're following
>>> The Shit of an insane guru.
>>> 
>> 
>> That's already in what they've written. 
> 
> Have they?  You're imagining, poor idiot.
> Once again. I'm an engineer. You're
> a carpenter. DON"T TELL ME HOW WE
> WORK. Poor idiot.

Hey, the stuff is published. By your colleagues. Whether you acknowledge or
not. Whether you dismiss your colleagues as deceived or not. 

> 
>>>>> But, true, the calculus of advantages and disadvantages is 
>>>>> against cubit. 
>>>> 
>>>> Exactly. The cubit lacks stability, reproducibility, and precision. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The cubit lacks. The day doesn't. 
>> 
>> Oh, but it does. The length of the day is not stable. It is not known to
>> the precision now needed.
> 
> Keep dreaming, poor idiot. Or take a look at GPS.
> Or UTC. Or TAI. Nobody serious is treating your
> idiocies seriously. Even worse. Nobody unserious,
> too.
> 
> Of course, it's off topic. 
> My gedanken is: 
> LET"S ASSUME IT HAPPENED.
> How are your "experimental" results now?
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web