Yes, The Shit is inconsistent

[Maciej Wozniak]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.

So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
times, 20000 times, anything you like.

Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
DARE YOU!!!!" like always.

[Python]

Even for you this argument is especially silly.

If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
then consider the traveling twin using his own local
"Earth clock" or even a whole co-moving copy of the
Solar System with him. That's it.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
> > As seen, the definition of second loved so
> > much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
> > wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
> > lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
> > 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
> >
> > So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
> > like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
> > the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
> > during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
> > 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
> > times, 20000 times, anything you like.
> >
> > Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
> > so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
> > DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
>
> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,

I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
mumbling inconsistently.
Or wasn't it?

> then consider the traveling twin using his own local
> "Earth clock" or even a whole co-moving copy of the
> Solar System with him. That's it.

Sure, sure. Nurse?
Well, that's what The Shit is doing to the brains of its
victims.

[Python]

Crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 13:04:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Complete idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>>> much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
>>> wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
>>> lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
>>> 1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>>>
>>> So, how did the mumble of Giant Guru look
>>> like up to 1960: "from the point of view" of
>>> the travelling twins of the famous paradox -
>>> during, let's say, 864Ms (i.e. by definition
>>> 10000 Earth turns) - Earth turned more, 15000
>>> times, 20000 times, anything you like.
>>>
>>> Thank you, poor halfbrains. Now it's your turn,
>>> so rave, spit and scream "UUUUUUUUU!!! HOW
>>> DARE YOU!!!!" like always.
>> Even for you this argument is especially silly.
>>
>> If you insist in using the Earth rotation as a clock,
>
> I don't really have to, the fact is that it was the ONLY
> option in 1905, when your idiot guru was living and
> mumbling inconsistently.
> Or wasn't it?

Well, it is well known that clocks didn't exist back then,
only sundials.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Or wasn't it?
No answer? Of course, poor trash.

And a sundial is a special case of a clock.

[Python]

> And a sundial is a special case of a clock.

So you are aware that there were other kind of clocks than
sundial back then, hence using the Earth rotation as a clock
wasn't the only option in 1905, so you argument is particularly
silly even according to your very low intellectual standards.

[Maciej Wozniak]

How were these clocks calibrated, then?

[Volney]

This is one of the better examples of how our janitor doesn't understand
the difference between time and a clock. He thinks the clock called
earth somehow magically controls time rather than measures it, even at
relativistic speeds where the earth clock will be seen as running slow.

And no, Einstein's SR and GR works don't depend on the definition of the
second. The only time that seconds appear is a pair of ratios where
ratios are given as x seconds per second (a pure number).

[Maciej Wozniak]

And do you still believe than announced by ISO
morons 9 192 631 770 is some "Newton mode"?
You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike. Even
considering the relativistic standards.

> And no, Einstein's SR and GR works don't depend on the definition of the
> second.

An assertion of a stupid Mike isn't any argument.

But maybe you can point an experiment falsifying
the hypothesis "Einstein's SR and GR works do

depend on the definition of the second".

Can you, stupid Mike?

[The Starmaker]

What nobody wants to admit here is that Albert Einstein used a type of
'Cucoo-Clock'.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

[Python]

So what? As long as they are calibrated they can be used
by the twins and there is no reason for theses clocks to
say in synch.

[Maciej Wozniak]

So, they were calibrated according to Earth-Sun cycles,
without any other option present. And your idiot guru was
mumbling inconsistently against the definitions
he was accepting; that's because he was too stupid
for dealing with definitions. Most guru mysticians
are.

> As long as they are calibrated they can be used
> by the twins and there is no reason for theses clocks to
> say in synch.

As long as they're calibrated to the same, unique source
they have to stay in synch. And, BTW, this source gives
us a nice preferred frame.
Your concept of duplicating solar system just to make
your nonsenses less nonsensical is very interesting, of
course - as an example of what a religious maniac can
invent to protect The Shit he believes.

[Python]

Why? Because you say so?

> And, BTW, this source gives us a nice preferred frame.

The solar system's frame of reference frame is in no
way a preferred frame of reference for the travelling
twin.

> Your concept of duplicating solar system just to make
> your nonsenses less nonsensical is very interesting, of
> course - as an example of what a religious maniac can
> invent to protect The Shit he believes.

You should consider it more carefully, it is impractical
(except for hypothetical type III civilizations) but
it the context of your silly claims on Einstein's paper
implicitly relying on the definition of the second
back then it is a very adequate way to point the silliness
of your argument.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Because they're counting the same cycles of the
same source, poor halfbrain.

> > And, BTW, this source gives us a nice preferred frame.
> The solar system's frame of reference frame is in no
> way a preferred frame of reference for the travelling
> twin.

Did you ask him?
A religious maniac doesn't have to ask, he just knows
what people prefer. Your idiot guru and yourself are
quite typical about that, aren't you?

But, somehow it is the preferred frame of referrence
for a travelling GPS satellite. And for Glonass, and
for others.

> > Your concept of duplicating solar system just to make
> > your nonsenses less nonsensical is very interesting, of
> > course - as an example of what a religious maniac can
> > invent to protect The Shit he believes.
> You should consider it more carefully, it is impractical
> (except for hypothetical type III civilizations) but
> it the context of your silly claims on Einstein's paper
> implicitly relying on the definition of the second
> back then it is a very adequate way to point the silliness
> of your argument.

It is a great example of - what The Shit has done to
your brain.
And even supposing you could clone Earth and Sun -
sorry, poor halfbrain: the definition was saying "Earth".
Not "Earth or its clone".

[Python]

*facepalm*

[Maciej Wozniak]

And The Shit stays inconsistent.

[Python]

And there are no other clocks than sundials. Sure.

You're such an idiot, Maciej, this is beyond decency.

[Maciej Wozniak]

A progress. it was "no clocks, just sundials" the last time...
At least you've been taught that a sundial is a clock. No
hope for more, I guess.
But The Shit stays inconsistent.

[Python]

It's not, and you are more ridiculous every single day.

[Volney]

SR doesn't depend on the definition of the second anyway, just like it
doesn't depend on the definition of the meter. Time is only referenced
as time. The only time that the second itself is referenced is when
calculation of time dilation ratios (twice), which are pure numbers but
derived as seconds per second. Time could be measured in Jupiterean
days, fortnights or whatever. Nothing special about this so-called third
rock from the sun.

[Volney]

Tell us, toilet licker, explain your "not even wrong" claim. How does
the ISO definition of the second have anything to do with whether
Newtonian mechanics or GR mechanics is used?

>> And no, Einstein's SR and GR works don't depend on the definition of the
>> second.
>
> An assertion of a stupid Mike isn't any argument.

Not an assertion. Point out in the 1905 SR paper where the second
definition matters, that is, changing the second to twice its current
value makes something break. Anywhere in the paper.

Or, do the same with general relativity.

>
> But maybe you can point an experiment falsifying
> the hypothesis "Einstein's SR and GR works do
> depend on the definition of the second".
> Can you, stupid Mike?
>

Since the second is not used *anywhere* in the SR paper other than
defining two ratios (pure numbers which don't depend on time units), it
is falsified by examination. Why not ask to falsify, using SR, the
statement "Zebras are just painted horses" ?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 15 March 2023 at 06:37:23 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/14/2023 9:54 AM, Python wrote:
> > Sutpid git Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:40:01 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>> Kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 14:29:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> >>>>>> It is a great example of - what The Shit has done to
> >>>>>> your brain.
> >>>>>> And even supposing you could clone Earth and Sun -
> >>>>>> sorry, poor halfbrain: the definition was saying "Earth".
> >>>>>> Not "Earth or its clone".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> *facepalm*
> >>>>
> >>>> And The Shit stays inconsistent.
> >>> And there are no other clocks than sundials.
> >>
> >> A progress. it was "no clocks, just sundials" the last time...
> >> At least you've been taught that a sundial is a clock. No
> >> hope for more, I guess.
> >> But The Shit stays inconsistent.
> >
> > It's not, and you are more ridiculous every single day.
> SR doesn't depend on the definition of the second anyway

An assertion af a stupid Mike is no argument, see.
Any experimental evidence?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Not mine, yours, wanna quoting?

> Not an assertion. Point out in the 1905 SR paper where the second
> definition matters,

Every place your idiot guru mentioned a clock, clocks
or time (defined by him as "what clocks indicate").
It happens they're closely related to second, and
the definition of second is determining their
performance. No surprise, of course, that such
an idiot can't get it.

[Volney]

I already know what you are misunderstanding. You don't understand that
Newton mode simply means no length contraction, no time dilation, none
of the stuff Einstein came up with starting in 1905 All good clocks tick
in synch and always show the same time. I have no idea of what you think
of the ISO second definition, it's just using a better clock than the earth.

>
>> Not an assertion. Point out in the 1905 SR paper where the second
>> definition matters,
>
> Every place your idiot guru mentioned a clock, clocks
> or time (defined by him as "what clocks indicate").

But he doesn't mention the second anywhere. You don't understand the
difference between time and the measure of time.

In the US length is measured in feet. You use meters. Does travel from
Poland to the US change the laws of physics because feet are used in the
US, other than the values in the different unit (such as the speed of
light being 186,282 miles/second)? If so, why?

> It happens they're closely related to second, and
> the definition of second is determining their
> performance.

Nope. Again you don't know the difference between time and a unit used
to measure time. There's nothing wrong with a clock that ticks off
microfortnights or something.

> No surprise, of course, that such
> an idiot can't get it.
>

But nobody expects more from a janitor such as yourself.

[Maciej Wozniak]

So what? Clocks are depending on seconds, that's
simply how things are, and whether physicists and their
minions are too stupid to realize or don't mention
it for other reasons - changes nothing; they still
are.

> Poland to the US change the laws of physics because feet are used in the
> US, other than the values in the different unit (such as the speed of
> light being 186,282 miles/second)?

Changes, in general, sometimes are insignificant -
there are many examples - and sometimes are very
significant - there are also many examples.
It depends what, precisely, they are, stupid Mike.

Only such an idiot as you are can argument, that
changes mus be always insignificant because of
some examples of insignificant changes.

> > It happens they're closely related to second, and
> > the definition of second is determining their
> > performance.
> Nope.

An assertion of a stupid Mike is not any argument.
And if clocks of GPS were set to 9 192 631 770, like
the definition of your bunch of idiots require - GPS
simply wouldn't work and wouldn't measure what
it's expected to measure, stupid Mike. Thus, if we
set the clocks back to your ISO/proper time idiocy
from Newton mode they're working now - it would
be a significant change, wouldn't it?

> to measure time. There's nothing wrong with a clock that ticks off
> microfortnights or something.

There is something wrong, however, if a clock ticks
at 9 192 631 770 ISO definition; that makes it unusable,
stupid Mike.
What a surprise, isn't it?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Nope, newtonian physics nowhere says that moving things
can't get shorter. You've fabricated this one.

>, no time dilation, none
> > of the stuff Einstein came up with starting in 1905 All good clocks tick
> > in synch and always show the same time.

And - that's precisely how good GPS clocks work now.
On the other hand - ISO/Einstein/proper time mode
means time dilation/"good" clocks out of synch, 9 192 631 770
Cs periods per second everywhere, exactly as it was durung
first days.
The switch GPS made was from Einstein mode to Newton
mode.
Of course. Common sense was warning your idiot guru.

[Volney]

Nope. Clocks measure time. They can be calibrated any way you want.

>> Poland to the US change the laws of physics because feet are used in the
>> US, other than the values in the different unit (such as the speed of
>> light being 186,282 miles/second)?
>
>
> Changes, in general, sometimes are insignificant -
> there are many examples - and sometimes are very
> significant - there are also many examples.
> It depends what, precisely, they are, stupid Mike.

Feet to meters is insignificant? A meter is more than three times a foot!

Meanwhile a wobbly rock second is very close to a standard Cs clock
second. But the latter is much more stable, so real scientists use it.
Actually everyone uses it now, as TAI, LORAN, GPS and UTC times are all
based on the Cs second, and all timezones are based on UTC time.

[Maciej Wozniak]

No, stupid Mike. They can't be calibrated the way
your idiot gurus want, to 9 192 631 770 - GPS
wouldn't work then. No, measuring time is only a
secondary functionality for them. Your idiot gurus
can't see further than the tip of their nose, they
didn't catch the primary one. Clocks are coordinate
generators. You look at them, you read the numbers
they display - you're getting your coordinated position
in time immediately.
I'm a professional in the field of informational
tools and their functionalities, they're not.

> > Changes, in general, sometimes are insignificant -
> > there are many examples - and sometimes are very
> > significant - there are also many examples.
> > It depends what, precisely, they are, stupid Mike.
> Feet to meters is insignificant?

Yes. Do you feel it is not, stupid Mike?

> A meter is more than three times a foot!

Right. Somehow, it doesn't make the change
significant:(

> Meanwhile a wobbly rock second is very close to a standard Cs clock
> second.

On the surface your idiocy is very close to the real
second, but on a GPS satellite it is not.

> But the latter is much more stable, so real scientists use it.
> Actually everyone uses it now, as TAI, LORAN, GPS and UTC times are all
> based on the Cs second

Nope. Cs second is 9 192 631 770. Everywhere. GPS
second is 9 192 631 770 on Earth, 9 192 631 774
on a satellite.
Sorry, poor trash - you're mistaken. About pretty
everything.

> and all timezones are based on UTC time.

The difference between UTC time and wobby rock
time is never bigger than 1-2 seconds, but the
difference between UTC and TAI is growing
and growing. And TAI second isn't ISO second too,
though the difference is very little here. If TAI
was obeying your idiocy - its clocks wouuldn't
keep sync.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Anyway - doesn't it surprise you, stupid Mike?
What seemed to be a matter of eternal Laws
of Nature, suddenly became a matter of what
your idiot gurus WANT.

We're FORCED!!! THE BEST WAY!!!! THE NATURE!!!
THE EXPERIMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nope. Nothing but an insane fancy of some insane
symmetry worshipers. No, no fucken way it can
pass.

[Volney]

Yes, clown. Anyone anywhere can come up with a new unit of time and
repaint a clock face/change its gears if they want. That even the US
uses the second doesn't change the fact that the second is only a unit
of time not time itself, just like the kilogram is only a unit of mass,
not mass itself,

> They can't be calibrated the way
> your idiot gurus want, to 9 192 631 770 - GPS
> wouldn't work then.

Exactly! Newtonian universal time doesn't work! The GPS prototype's
first 20 days running assuming Newtonian universal time didn't work as
its signal received on earth didn't match one using a divisor of
9,192,631,770! So they had to use Einstein mode with a divisor of
9,192,631,774.1 for it to be received at 9,192,631,770!

> No, measuring time is only a
> secondary functionality for them. Your idiot gurus
> can't see further than the tip of their nose, they
> didn't catch the primary one. Clocks are coordinate
> generators. You look at them, you read the numbers
> they display - you're getting your coordinated position
> in time immediately.

Clocks only measure the time coordinate. They generate nothing other
than some of them generate tick-tick-tick sounds.

> I'm a professional in the field of informational
> tools and their functionalities, they're not.

No, you are a crank pretending to be a professional. And doing a poor
job at it.

>
>
>>> Changes, in general, sometimes are insignificant -
>>> there are many examples - and sometimes are very
>>> significant - there are also many examples.
>>> It depends what, precisely, they are, stupid Mike.

>> Feet to meters is insignificant?
>
> Yes. Do you feel it is not, stupid Mike?

Why do you believe seconds to very slightly different seconds is
significant?

>
>> A meter is more than three times a foot!

> Right. Somehow, it doesn't make the change
> significant:(

Yet you are hung up on seconds to very slightly different seconds.

>
>> Meanwhile a wobbly rock second is very close to a standard Cs clock
>> second.
>
> On the surface your idiocy is very close to the real
> second, but on a GPS satellite it is not.

If you think there's a difference, then you must agree with the basics
of GR but you don't quite get it. At least you believe the basics of GR!

Regardless, the second at the GPS clock is still 9,192,631,770 Cs cycle
times. The 9,192,631,774.1 timer is so it matches on earth's surface.

>
>> But the latter is much more stable, so real scientists use it.
>> Actually everyone uses it now, as TAI, LORAN, GPS and UTC times are all
>> based on the Cs second
>
> Nope. Cs second is 9 192 631 770. Everywhere.

Very good! But locally.

> GPS second

No such thing.

> is 9 192 631 770 on Earth, 9 192 631 774
> on a satellite.

So you do believe in GR but don't quite get it right.

>> and all timezones are based on UTC time.

> The difference between UTC time and wobby rock
> time is never bigger than 1-2 seconds, but the
> difference between UTC and TAI is growing
> and growing.

Because that wobbly rock is just too wobbly. These days much science
needs a more stable time base than wobbly rock time. The whole reason
for switching to a Cs timebase for the second definition in the first place!

> And TAI second isn't ISO second too,
> though the difference is very little here.

They are *exactly* the same. "TAI second" *IS* the ISO second, and is
based on a network of Cs clocks.

> If TAI
> was obeying your idiocy - its clocks wouuldn't
> keep sync.

But they do keep synch, which is why it's based on the Cs clock network
in the first place.

[Python]

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> I'm a professional in the field of informational
> tools and their functionalities, they're not.

Ah ah ah ah ah ah!

[Maciej Wozniak]

And be ignored, like your bunch of idiots was, clown.

> > They can't be calibrated the way
> > your idiot gurus want, to 9 192 631 770 - GPS
> > wouldn't work then.
> Exactly! Newtonian universal time doesn't work!

9 192 631 770 is not Newtonian universal time.
Newtonian time is 1/86400 of a day second, giving
9 192 631 770 on Earth and 9 192 631 774
on a GPS satellite.
9 192 631 770 is the ISO/proper time idiocy
of your insane gurus. And yours. Of course it
doesn't work, common sense was warning you.

> >>> Changes, in general, sometimes are insignificant -
> >>> there are many examples - and sometimes are very
> >>> significant - there are also many examples.
> >>> It depends what, precisely, they are, stupid Mike.
>
> >> Feet to meters is insignificant?
> >
> > Yes. Do you feel it is not, stupid Mike?
> Why do you believe seconds to very slightly different seconds is
> significant?

Because seconds of your bunch of idiots -
9 192 631 770 everywhere - don't work, and
seconds of Newton - 9 192 631 770 on Earth
and 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite - do
work. The difference between working and
not working is a significant difference for me.

> >> Meanwhile a wobbly rock second is very close to a standard Cs clock
> >> second.
> >
> > On the surface your idiocy is very close to the real
> > second, but on a GPS satellite it is not.
> If you think there's a difference, then you must agree with the basics
> of GR

No, I don't have to. Only such an idiot as you are
can believe that I do - after all I wrote here during
years.

> Regardless, the second at the GPS clock is still 9,192,631,770 Cs cycle
> times.

No, it is not. It is 9,192,631,774.1. 1/86400 of a day.

> >
> >> But the latter is much more stable, so real scientists use it.
> >> Actually everyone uses it now, as TAI, LORAN, GPS and UTC times are all
> >> based on the Cs second
> >
> > Nope. Cs second is 9 192 631 770. Everywhere.
> Very good! But locally.
>
> > GPS second
>
> No such thing.
> > is 9 192 631 770 on Earth, 9 192 631 774
> > on a satellite.
> So you do believe in GR

No, poor halfbrain, I don't. Does yourt GR shit
say what I do - that second is 9 192 631 774
on a satellite?

> > The difference between UTC time and wobby rock
> > time is never bigger than 1-2 seconds, but the
> > difference between UTC and TAI is growing
> > and growing.
> Because that wobbly rock is just too wobbly.

Because UTC doesn't care about your delusions
completely, while TAI only mostly.

> > And TAI second isn't ISO second too,
> > though the difference is very little here.
> They are *exactly* the same. "TAI second" *IS* the ISO second, and is
> based on a network of Cs clocks.
> > If TAI
> > was obeying your idiocy - its clocks wouuldn't
> > keep sync.
> But they do keep synch,

Do clocks from your dreamland,
obeying your ISO idiocy - keep synch? at different
alitudes? Moving wrt each other?
No, they don't. TAI clocks do, TAI clocks aren't
clocks from your dreamland obeying your ISO
idiocy.