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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#421118

W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 22:49:48 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> <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. 

WHAT stuff?
What, precisely, did they publish?
Did they write "important, visible,
easy to count are not advantageous 
at all"?
You're both pathetic and funny.
As expected from fanatic trash.

Really, you'd better stick to your
toys.

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

#421131

<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 22:49:48 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> <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. 
> 
> WHAT stuff?
> What, precisely, did they publish?
> Did they write "important, visible,
> easy to count are not advantageous 
> at all"?
> You're both pathetic and funny.
> As expected from fanatic trash.

Well, there are lots of places you can look to see what's deemed important,
regardless what you personally think is important. Here's a start. Do you
need a dime to buy a clue?

www.bipm.org/en/publications/mises-en-pratique/

You can cling to your MINOR advantages and your common sense if that
comforts you. Meanwhile the rest of the world will move on. 

www.tek.com/service/understanding-calibration/references-resources
http://www.npl.co.uk/upload/pdf/NPL-Beginners-Guide-to-Measurement.pdf

See any of your criteria in there? No? Hmmm. What does that tell you about
your common sense?


> 
> Really, you'd better stick to your
> toys.
> 



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

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

#421165

W dniu środa, 31 maja 2017 00:35:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 22:49:48 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >> <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. 
> > 
> > WHAT stuff?
> > What, precisely, did they publish?
> > Did they write "important, visible,
> > easy to count are not advantageous 
> > at all"?
> > You're both pathetic and funny.
> > As expected from fanatic trash.
> 
> Well, there are lots of places you can look to see what's deemed important,
> regardless what you personally think is important. 

Surely, instead thinking personally, I should
obey the gurus telling me what is important.
Like you do... They're so incredibly wise!
They've analyzed MMX experiment,  they surely
know what is important.
It's not how engineering work, however. 

> You can cling to your MINOR advantages and your common sense if that
> comforts you. Meanwhile the rest of the world will move on. 

And, unfortunately, it won't use your idiocy. For its MAJOR 
disadvantages. Check at GPS.

> See any of your criteria in there? No? Hmmm. What does that tell you about
> your common sense?

That it's a basic knowledge for dummies. Like you.
Take a look at advanced clocks - GPS clocks, 
TAI clocks, UTC clocks.
None of them obey your idiocy.

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

#421178

<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> W dniu środa, 31 maja 2017 00:35:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 22:49:48 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>> <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. 
>>> 
>>> WHAT stuff?
>>> What, precisely, did they publish?
>>> Did they write "important, visible,
>>> easy to count are not advantageous 
>>> at all"?
>>> You're both pathetic and funny.
>>> As expected from fanatic trash.
>> 
>> Well, there are lots of places you can look to see what's deemed important,
>> regardless what you personally think is important. 
> 
> Surely, instead thinking personally, I should
> obey the gurus telling me what is important.

Well, there you go. You are certainly free to think for yourself, and to
separate yourself from scientists and your fellow engineers. It will still
be the case that scientists and engineers do not advocate what you
advocate, and for good and documented reasons. As I said, they will move
society along without you, leaving you behind to stew in your common sense.
All those unspoken, undocumented criteria you say are there implicitly but
not explicitly.  

Have a nice 13th century.

> Like you do... They're so incredibly wise!
> They've analyzed MMX experiment,  they surely
> know what is important.
> It's not how engineering work, however. 
> 
>> You can cling to your MINOR advantages and your common sense if that
>> comforts you. Meanwhile the rest of the world will move on. 
> 
> And, unfortunately, it won't use your idiocy. For its MAJOR 
> disadvantages. Check at GPS.
> 
>> See any of your criteria in there? No? Hmmm. What does that tell you about
>> your common sense?
> 
> That it's a basic knowledge for dummies. Like you.
> Take a look at advanced clocks - GPS clocks, 
> TAI clocks, UTC clocks.
> None of them obey your idiocy.
> 



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

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

#421184

W dniu środa, 31 maja 2017 14:59:17 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > W dniu środa, 31 maja 2017 00:35:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 22:49:48 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>> <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. 
> >>> 
> >>> WHAT stuff?
> >>> What, precisely, did they publish?
> >>> Did they write "important, visible,
> >>> easy to count are not advantageous 
> >>> at all"?
> >>> You're both pathetic and funny.
> >>> As expected from fanatic trash.
> >> 
> >> Well, there are lots of places you can look to see what's deemed important,
> >> regardless what you personally think is important. 
> > 
> > Surely, instead thinking personally, I should
> > obey the gurus telling me what is important.
> 
> Well, there you go. You are certainly free to think for yourself, and to
> separate yourself from scientists and your fellow engineers. 

Onece again: stop telling me tales of my fellows engineers.
We're not obeying your idiocies, and we won't obey them.
You can check it taking a look at GPS clocks, or UTC clocks
or TAI clocks.
Better stick to your toys. And have a nice XIX century.

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

#421198

mlwozniak@wp.pl writes:

>Onece again: stop telling me tales of my fellows engineers.
>We're not obeying your idiocies, and we won't obey them.

"Fellow engineers"? You mean there is a whole asylum full of you
wannabe engineers pretending out there?  Or do you just have a
bunch of mice out there?

>You can check it taking a look at GPS clocks, or UTC clocks
>or TAI clocks.

All of which are based on the same atomic clock basis, as any real
engineer can verify by looking at the definition of any of them.

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

#421157

mlwozniak@wp.pl writes:

>> 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.

I really, really doubt that you are any sort of engineer. You don't think
like an engineer. You don't research the specifications of things like
the GPS or research the variance of the length of the solar day like a
real engineer would. Instead you tell us to "go look at the GPS" when
anyone who actually looks at the GPS specs sees the specs say the exact
opposite of what you claim.  A real engineer would look up _why_ we no 
longer use the solar day to define the second, just like we no longer use 
the foot of the current king to define the standard length.
Odd, toymaker that he is, would make a better engineer than you do.
You just autisticly repeat the same mantra over and over.

Perhaps you are an engineer-wannabe, but didn't have what it takes to
become an engineer. Or perhaps you WERE an engineer before you either
retired and started losing your marbles, or just went insane.  Or maybe
you are a self-awarded "engineer", like how Ken Seto and Ralph Rabbidge
awarded themselves the title of physicist? (with Rabbidge even having
a homemade diploma to prove it!)

>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.

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

#421166

W dniu środa, 31 maja 2017 05:29:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał:
> mlwozniak@wp.pl writes:
> 
> >> 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.
> 
> I really, really doubt that you are any sort of engineer. 

I don't care. Poor idiot.

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

#421179

<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> W dniu środa, 31 maja 2017 05:29:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał:
>> mlwozniak@wp.pl writes:
>> 
>>>> 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.
>> 
>> I really, really doubt that you are any sort of engineer. 
> 
> I don't care. Poor idiot.
> 

Of course you don't care. Your antagonism has overridden your dignity. 

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

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

#421196

mlwozniak@wp.pl writes:

>> I really, really doubt that you are any sort of engineer.

>I don't care. Poor idiot.

That's nice, Pretend Engineer. Now step aside and allow the real
physicists and engineers create cool stuff like atomic clocks accurate to
a millisecond per billion years and GPS systems proving general relativity
every day, while you have to deal with the inaccuracies of the solar day.

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

#421203

W dniu środa, 31 maja 2017 16:17:41 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał:
> mlwozniak@wp.pl writes:
> 
> >> I really, really doubt that you are any sort of engineer.
> 
> >I don't care. Poor idiot.
> 
> That's nice, Pretend Engineer. Now step aside and allow the real
> physicists and engineers create cool stuff like atomic clocks accurate to
> a millisecond per billion years 

And pissing at moronic concept of your moronic guru.

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

#420959

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:

><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?

And which day should they choose, and why? The day-based second is quite
inaccurate since its length varies throughout the year, plus it gets
slightly longer every year.  Which is why they stopped using it in the
first place.

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

#420964

W dniu poniedziałek, 29 maja 2017 20:18:32 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> ><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?
> 
> And which day should they choose, and why? The day-based second is quite
> inaccurate since

It's unacceptive only for your bunch of idiots,
Since it doesn't match your moronic ideology.

Well, nobody cares. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web