Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #421099
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Do you like gedanken? |
| Date | 2017-05-30 19:30 +0000 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <ogkh8t$1jfr$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <16d9c7cf-f39c-4f51-a4f9-afa2bf2a7d63@googlegroups.com> <ogk15e$mfd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <008bf48a-425d-40a9-8756-beed2d2d6235@googlegroups.com> <ogkdom$1cos$1@gioia.aioe.org> <92512ad7-42f0-4be0-9b24-55b05abbdb25@googlegroups.com> |
<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
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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
csiph-web