Better our devices are - more resistance
to the nature and its fancies they have.
A perfect clock would ignore the nature
completely.
Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
Better our devices are - more resistanceWhy kick down this open door once again?
to the nature and its fancies they have.
A perfect clock would ignore the nature
completely.
Perfect clocks do not exist, period.
Perfect clocks are idealisations,
like ideal gasses, frictionless planes,
and spherical cows.
All we can ever have are imperfect clocks
which we correct for their imperfections
as well as possible,
Better our devices are - more resistance
to the nature and its fancies they have.
A perfect clock would ignore the nature
completely.
More stable, more independent on the environment
and its fancies a device is - better it is.
Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
Le 26/04/2024 à 11:59, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
More stable, more independent on the environment
and its fancies a device is - better it is.
Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
Like nature despised you completely? I understand why you
hate nature then :-)
W dniu 26.04.2024 o 12:29, Python pisze:
Le 26/04/2024 à 11:59, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
More stable, more independent on the environment
and its fancies a device is - better it is.
Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
Like nature despised you completely? I understand why you
hate nature then :-)
See, trash - I've proven
More stable, more independent on the environment
and its fancies a device is - better it is.
Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
The mumble of Maciej Wozniak was not even
consistent, and he has been proven demented
Insults cast by some old Polish maniac are changing
nothing, sorry,
trash.
Le 26/04/2024 à 13:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 26.04.2024 o 12:29, Python pisze:
Le 26/04/2024 à 11:59, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
More stable, more independent on the environment
and its fancies a device is - better it is.
Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
Like nature despised you completely? I understand why you
hate nature then :-)
See, trash - I've proven
that you are a demented ranting old fart? Sure.
Le 26/04/2024 à 18:25, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
...
The mumble of Maciej Wozniak was not even
consistent, and he has been proven demented
Sure.
More stable, more independent on the environment
and its fancies a device is - better it is.
Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
W dniu 26.04.2024 o 18:31, Python pisze:
Le 26/04/2024 à 18:25, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
...
The mumble of Maciej Wozniak was not even
consistent, and he has been proven demented
Sure.
No, I didn't write it
Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
More stable, more independent on the environment
and its fancies a device is - better it is.
Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,
Le 26/04/2024 à 20:41, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
W dniu 26.04.2024 o 18:31, Python pisze:
Le 26/04/2024 à 18:25, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
...
The mumble of Maciej Wozniak was not even
consistent, and he has been proven demented
Sure.
No, I didn't write it
I corrected a few typos.
W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
More stable, more independent on the environment
and its fancies a device is - better it is.
Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,
What is "perfect nature", Lod?
Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
More stable, more independent on the environment
and its fancies a device is - better it is.
Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,
What is "perfect nature", Lod?
There is only one 'Nature',
W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:50, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
More stable, more independent on the environment
and its fancies a device is - better it is.
Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,
What is "perfect nature", Lod?
There is only one 'Nature',
And that "perfect nature" you mentioned - is?
Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
More stable, more independent on the environment
and its fancies a device is - better it is.
Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,
What is "perfect nature", Lod?
There is only one 'Nature',
Jan
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
More stable, more independent on the environment
and its fancies a device is - better it is.
Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
A very strange assertion since clocks are supposed to
measure something that is at the very basis of reality.
Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,
What is "perfect nature", Lod?
There is only one 'Nature',
Jan
Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
"time" ... but what is "time"?
parts? What is "now"? Clocks are supposed to model time,
so what what do we assume "time" is?
At present, we assume the duration of a second of time is
described by 9,192, 631,770 cycles of the standard Cs-133
hyper-fine transition. Since that's a part of nature, Woz's
assertion makes no sense.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
More stable, more independent on the environment
and its fancies a device is - better it is.
Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
What would a "perfect clock" be made of, a Superman costume?
W dniu 27.04.2024 o 21:50, gharnagel pisze:
Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
"time" ... but what is "time"?
Time is what clocks indicate - your idiot guru
was actually right at this point. It's no
way a part of nature, sorry, poor halfbrain.
At present, we assume the duration of a second of time is
described by 9,192, 631,770 cycles of the standard Cs-133
Oh, do you? Sane people don't,
anyone can check GPS.
hyper-fine transition. Since that's a part of nature, Woz's
assertion makes no sense.
Since it's not - YOUR assertions makes no sense, Har.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 27.04.2024 o 21:50, gharnagel pisze:
Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
"time" ... but what is "time"?
Time is what clocks indicate - your idiot guru
was actually right at this point. It's no
way a part of nature, sorry, poor halfbrain.
So the Great Quarterbrain, Wozzie, believes time is fictitious,
does he?
Everyone knows that time is nature's way of keeping everything
At present, we assume the duration of a second of time is
described by 9,192, 631,770 cycles of the standard Cs-133
Oh, do you? Sane people don't,
Sane people DO
Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
"time" ...
but what is "time"?
On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:
Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
"time" ...
Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
or requires time to exist then nothing is left.
but what is "time"?
Many things are called "time".
On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:
Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
"time" ...
Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
or requires time to exist then nothing is left.
but what is "time"?
Many things are called "time". Without a disambiguating context
"time" is not a concept but a topic.
--
Mikko
Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:
Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
"time" ...
Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
or requires time to exist then nothing is left.
but what is "time"?
Many things are called "time". Without a disambiguating context
"time" is not a concept but a topic.
--
Mikko
What about if you reverse time, Mikko? How do you measure the reversal
of time?? Does the Sun go backwards??? Do I get younger????
The Starmaker wrote:
Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:
Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
"time" ...
Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
or requires time to exist then nothing is left.
but what is "time"?
Many things are called "time". Without a disambiguating context
"time" is not a concept but a topic.
--
Mikko
What about if you reverse time, Mikko? How do you measure the reversal
of time?? Does the Sun go backwards??? Do I get younger????
Does the biologicial clock work in conjustion with the Sun?
On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:
Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
"time" ...
Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
or requires time to exist then nothing is left.
but what is "time"?
Many things are called "time". Without a disambiguating context
"time" is not a concept but a topic.
Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:
Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
"time" ...
Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
or requires time to exist then nothing is left.
But isn't nature dynamic? Seasons change, animals live and die,
the earth gets older, stars evolve. These require the concept of
time.
Isn't time both a concept AND a topic? I suppose the same can be
said about nature. So what? How has that furthered the discussion?
Wozzie lies about time by doing the opposite of disambiguating:
Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:
Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
"time" ...
Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
or requires time to exist then nothing is left.
But isn't nature dynamic? Seasons change, animals live and die,
the earth gets older, stars evolve. These require the concept of
time.
but what is "time"?
Many things are called "time". Without a disambiguating context
"time" is not a concept but a topic.
Isn't time both a concept AND a topic? I suppose the same can be
said about nature. So what? How has that furthered the discussion?
Wozzie lies about time by doing the opposite of disambiguating:
he obfuscates, he muddles, he reads a clock located elsewhere and
pretends it would read the same if he were right beside it.
On 2024-04-28 20:52:14 +0000, gharnagel said:
Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:
Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
"time" ...
Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
or requires time to exist then nothing is left.
But isn't nature dynamic? Seasons change, animals live and die,
the earth gets older, stars evolve. These require the concept of
time.
Yes. If you remove time, you must also remove all change and deth
and getting older and evolving. You must also remove seasons, animals
W dniu 28.04.2024 o 11:40, Mikko pisze:
On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:
Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
"time" ...
Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
or requires time to exist then nothing is left.
but what is "time"?
Many things are called "time".
Does every of them have the property above,
poor halfbrain?
Time is a tool for describing things.
If you take it away - everything stays as it is, you
just can't say a word about it anymore.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 28.04.2024 o 11:40, Mikko pisze:
On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:
that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of timeThe discussion seems to be about the part of nature calledPerhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
"time" ...
Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
or requires time to exist then nothing is left.
but what is "time"?Many things are called "time".
Does every of them have the property above,
poor halfbrain?
That should be "Do all of them," quarterbrain.
Time is a tool for describing things.
So Wozzie believes time is a tool, invented, not a concept.
problem is that he just proved that what Mikko said is correct.
Wozzie is dishonest because he takes only a part of the answer
and pretends that it's ALL of the answer.
If you take it away - everything stays as it is, you
just can't say a word about it anymore.
So Wozzie quarterbrain believes if we didn't have clocks all
processes of nature would stop?
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t&ei=UTF-8&p=my+grandfather%27s+clock#id=2&vid=47e1d2d247b785182417aa9d93eaa0df&action=click
True, clocks are tools, but time is a concept
W dniu 29.04.2024 o 14:27, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 28.04.2024 o 11:40, Mikko pisze:
On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:
Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
"time" ...
Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
or requires time to exist then nothing is left.
but what is "time"?
Many things are called "time".
Does every of them have the property above,
poor halfbrain?
That should be "Do all of them," quarterbrain.
And that's because...?
Time is a tool for describing things.
So Wozzie believes time is a tool, invented, not a concept.
Of course it's a concept. Concepts are invented.
His
problem is that he just proved that what Mikko said is correct.
Which one? He said 2 things, generally
excluding each other, as expected from
a relativistic idiot.
Wozzie is dishonest because he takes only a part of the answer
and pretends that it's ALL of the answer.
Harrie, on the other hand, is dishonest because
he lies impudently.
If you take it away - everything stays as it is, you
just can't say a word about it anymore.
So Wozzie quarterbrain believes if we didn't have clocks all
processes of nature would stop?
Nope. Oppositely
- you and your fellow idiot Mikko
believe that,
because - with all of your mystical
nonsensens - you're still defining time as "what
clocks indicate". Or don't you?
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t&ei=UTF-8&p=my+grandfather%27s+clock#id=2&vid=47e1d2d247b785182417aa9d93eaa0df&action=click
True, clocks are tools, but time is a concept
It is.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/concept
How did you imagine an idea can't be a tool?
And how did you imagine that nature is creating ideas?
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 29.04.2024 o 14:27, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 28.04.2024 o 11:40, Mikko pisze:
On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:
Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
"time" ...
Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
or requires time to exist then nothing is left.
but what is "time"?
Many things are called "time".
Does every of them have the property above,
poor halfbrain?
That should be "Do all of them," quarterbrain.
And that's because...?
"Does every of them have" is incorrect English, eighthbrain.
Of course it's a concept. Concepts are invented.Time is a tool for describing things.
So Wozzie believes time is a tool, invented, not a concept.
SO Wozzie starts with the the half-answers and deception again.
Concepts are only "half invented,"
His
problem is that he just proved that what Mikko said is correct.
Which one? He said 2 things, generally
excluding each other, as expected from
a relativistic idiot.
If you can't figure it out, you prove yourself the idiot.
Wozzie is dishonest because he takes only a part of the answer
and pretends that it's ALL of the answer.
Harrie, on the other hand, is dishonest because
he lies impudently.
Nope. I don't lie.
- you and your fellow idiot Mikko
believe that,
:-))
because - with all of your mystical
nonsensens - you're still defining time as "what
clocks indicate". Or don't you?
I'm not. I don't think Mikko is, either.
W dniu 29.04.2024 o 19:41, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 29.04.2024 o 14:27, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Does every of them have the property above,
poor halfbrain?
That should be "Do all of them," quarterbrain.
And that's because...?
"Does every of them have" is incorrect English, eighthbrain.
Not impossible, but I would rather think you've
fabricated such a rule because it was comfortable
for you at the moment.
Time is a tool for describing things.
So Wozzie believes time is a tool, invented, not a concept.
Of course it's a concept. Concepts are invented.
SO Wozzie starts with the the half-answers and deception again.
Concepts are only "half invented,"
Nope. Concepts are information,
I'm an information engineer,
you're just arrogant idiot suffering the DK effect. Concepts are
definitely invented.
Wozzie is dishonest because he takes only a part of the answer
and pretends that it's ALL of the answer.
Harrie, on the other hand, is dishonest because
he lies impudently.
Nope. I don't lie.
Yes. You do.
Typical, of course, for a Shit's worshipper.
because - with all of your mystical
nonsensens - you're still defining time as "what
clocks indicate". Or don't you?
I'm not. I don't think Mikko is, either.
Oops. That's how your idiot guru defined time.
This is the official definition of the church of The
Shit.
So - talking about time you're ignoring it - what
are you talking about, then?
"Does every of them have" is incorrect English, eighthbrain.
Not impossible, but I would rather think you've
fabricated such a rule because it was comfortable
for you at the moment.
Of course Wozzie prefers that solution that makes others dishonest.
Of course it's a concept. Concepts are invented.Concepts are only "half invented,"
SO Wozzie starts with the the half-answers and deception again.
Nope. Concepts are information,
Well, that depends on what is "information."
I'm an information engineer,
You're doing a very poor job of it.
Oops. That's how your idiot guru defined time.because - with all of your mystical
nonsensens - you're still defining time as "what
clocks indicate". Or don't you?
I'm not. I don't think Mikko is, either.
He's not an idiot like Wozzie is.
This is the official definition of the church of The
Shit.
Says the congenital liar.
So - talking about time you're ignoring it - what
are you talking about, then?
Au contraire. I tried to have a meaningful discussion
about time.
W dniu 30.04.2024 o 00:08, gharnagel pisze:
"Does every of them have" is incorrect English, eighthbrain.
Not impossible, but I would rather think you've
fabricated such a rule because it was comfortable
for you at the moment.
Of course Wozzie prefers that solution that makes others dishonest.
If you've not fabricated the rule -
well, show me some link.
Concepts are only "half invented,"
Nope. Concepts are information,
Well, that depends on what is "information."
It may, but I'm still an information engineer,
you're still a DK idiot and concepts are still
invented.
I'm an information engineer,
You're doing a very poor job of it.
Said a DK idiot. But my employers are satisfied.
So - talking about time you're ignoring it - what
are you talking about, then?
Au contraire. I tried to have a meaningful discussion
about time.
Time i.e what?
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 30.04.2024 o 00:08, gharnagel pisze:
"Does every of them have" is incorrect English, eighthbrain.
Not impossible, but I would rather think you've
fabricated such a rule because it was comfortable
for you at the moment.
Of course Wozzie prefers that solution that makes others dishonest.
If you've not fabricated the rule -
well, show me some link.
Wozzie doesn't deserve a link because he is a dishonest troll,
but I will magnanimously provide one:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/every
"Every" is an adjective. An adjective modifies a noun. Wozzie didn't provide the noun.
It may, but I'm still an information engineer,Concepts are only "half invented,"
Nope. Concepts are information,
Well, that depends on what is "information."
Who can't define information :-)
you're still a DK idiot and concepts are still
invented.
and who can't define a concept.
Even without the ability of defining information,
my competence in the subject exists,
in opposition to yours.
And your ravings and insults are not going
to change anything
- sane people, as anyone can check at GPS, keep
assuming the second to be 9 192 631 770 on Earth,
but 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.
Common sense was warning your bunch of idiots.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Even without the ability of defining information,
my competence in the subject exists,
Perhaps Wozzie is of some value to his employer.
in opposition to yours.
My "competence"? Wozzie can't even define the word.
And your ravings and insults are not going
to change anything
The only people I insult get back what they dish out.
Wozzie is just being an infantile whiner.
- sane people, as anyone can check at GPS, keep
assuming the second to be 9 192 631 770 on Earth,
Wozzie can't even tell the truth on such a simple
thing. The second is DEFINED to be 9 192 631 770
transitions the hyperfine Cs-133 point. There is
no "assuming" about it.
but 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.
How does Wozzie KNOW that it's "9 192 631 774 on a
GPS satellite"? He doesn't, of course. He's taking
the GPS engineer's word for it.
Common sense was warning your bunch of idiots.
:-)) Wozzie isn't fooling anyone with his lying
nonsense. He seems to believe that if a one meter
rod subtends an arc of Theta degrees at distance D,
sane people, as anyone can check at GPS, keep assuming the second to
be 9 192 631 770 on Earth,
but 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.
On 5/1/24 12:06 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
sane people, as anyone can check at GPS, keep assuming the second to
be 9 192 631 770 on Earth,
This is not an "assumption", this is the definition of the second --
that's what these words mean.
On a GPS satellite, the usual definition of the second applies.
order for the SIGNALS from GPS satellites to be received on earth at the correct frequencies, the time-base on the satellite must tick about
W dniu 04.05.2024 o 17:46, Tom Roberts pisze:
On 5/1/24 12:06 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
sane people, as anyone can check at GPS, keep assuming the second to
be 9 192 631 770 on Earth,
This is not an "assumption", this is the definition of the second --
that's what these words mean.
1) Poincare has said that axiooms are "definitions
in disguise", or something like that. I would say
it differently - anyway, definitions are assumed.
2)Could find a quoting where you admit that in the
context of GPS the word means something else.
See: even such pathetic pieces of fanatic shit
like you or Harrie can't lie 100% of time.
On a GPS satellite, the usual definition of the second applies.
No.
But in order for the SIGNALS from GPS satellites to be received
on earth at the correct frequencies, the time-base on the satellite
must tick about
Common sense was warning your idiot guru, wasn't it?
On 5/4/2024 12:05 AM, gharnagel wrote:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Even without the ability of defining information,
my competence in the subject exists,
Perhaps Wozzie is of some value to his employer.
Every company needs someone to dump the trash and clean the toilets.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 04.05.2024 o 17:46, Tom Roberts pisze:
to > > be 9 192 631 770 on Earth,
On 5/1/24 12:06 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
sane people, as anyone can check at GPS, keep assuming the second
This is not an "assumption", this is the definition of the second --that's what these words mean.
1) Poincare has said that axiooms are "definitions
in disguise", or something like that. I would say
it differently - anyway, definitions are assumed.
SOme are, but not all.
2)Could find a quoting where you admit that in the
context of GPS the word means something else.
The fact is that if one had an accurate 1 second
aboard the GPS, it would tick at exactly 1 second per second, but
it would not appear to from the ground. In fact, the first bird
up there had exactly that and it didn't tick at 1 second per second
at the ground. That's why they switched to the alternate timing.
See: even such pathetic pieces of fanatic shit
like you or Harrie can't lie 100% of time.
See? Wozzie lies ALL the time.
On a GPS satellite, the usual definition of the second applies.
No.
Yes!
Common sense was warning your idiot guru, wasn't it?
The idiots were the engineers that disbelieved relativity.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Even without the ability of defining information,
my competence in the subject exists,
Perhaps Wozzie is of some value to his employer.
:-)) Wozzie isn't fooling anyone with his lying
nonsense. He seems to believe that if a one meter
rod subtends an arc of Theta degrees at distance D,
it should subtend the same arc at distance 2D.
That is really what Wozzie's stupid ASSertion, his
"common sense" amounts to.
On 5/1/24 12:06 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
sane people, as anyone can check at GPS, keep assuming the second to
be 9 192 631 770 on Earth,
This is not an "assumption", this is the definition of the second --
that's what these words mean.
but 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.
This is not true. NOBODY thinks that (except some deranged idiots around here).
On a GPS satellite, the usual definition of the second applies. But in
order for the SIGNALS from GPS satellites to be received on earth at the correct frequencies, the time-base on the satellite must tick about 4
parts in 10^10 more slowly than a corresponding time-base on earth's
geoid (mean sea level).
W dniu 06.05.2024 o 01:59, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 04.05.2024 o 17:46, Tom Roberts pisze:
On 5/1/24 12:06 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
sane people, as anyone can check at GPS, keep assuming the second
to be 9 192 631 770 on Earth,
This is not an "assumption", this is the definition of the second -- that's what these words mean.
1) Poincare has said that axiooms are "definitions
in disguise", or something like that. I would say
it differently - anyway, definitions are assumed.
SOme are, but not all.
Because a DK idiot is believing and asserting?
See, Harrie - definitions are not physical
entities,
your "authority" in the field is completely
self-appointed.
And definitions are really a special form of axioms.
Ready to discuss it, yes, but not with a DK idiot.
2)Could find a quoting where you admit that in the
context of GPS the word means something else.
The fact is that if one had an accurate 1 second
The fact is that outside of your mad church nobody
cares what your mad church is assuming accurate or
not.
The fact is also that common sense was warning
your idiot guru.
But you can keep fooling yourself insisting that
GPS has inaccurate clocks, why not; at least
you've (temporarily?) stopped to deny they're real.
per second clock
aboard the GPS, it would tick at exactly 1 second per second, but
it would not appear to from the ground. In fact, the first bird
up there had exactly that and it didn't tick at 1 second per second
at the ground. That's why they switched to the alternate timing.
See: even such pathetic pieces of fanatic shit
like you or Harrie can't lie 100% of time.
See? Wozzie lies ALL the time.
On a GPS satellite, the usual definition of the second applies.
No.
Yes!
No.
I could find a quoting in which even
that piece of shit Roberts is admitting it.
Common sense was warning your idiot guru, wasn't it?
The idiots were the engineers that disbelieved relativity.
Your ravings and spitting won't change anything,
nobody sane is assuming that GPS clocks are inaccurate
(because SO!!!) and nobody sane ever will be.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 06.05.2024 o 01:59, gharnagel pisze:
second > > > > to be 9 192 631 770 on Earth,
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 04.05.2024 o 17:46, Tom Roberts pisze:
On 5/1/24 12:06 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
sane people, as anyone can check at GPS, keep assuming the
second --
This is not an "assumption", this is the definition of the
Because a DK idiot is believing and asserting?that's what these words mean.
1) Poincare has said that axiooms are "definitions
in disguise", or something like that. I would say
it differently - anyway, definitions are assumed.
SOme are, but not all.
Because a dishonest fool says the opposite?
See, Harrie - definitions are not physical
entities,
I said just the opposite
your "authority" in the field is completely
self-appointed.
Looking for someone with a little authority? I have as little
as anyone.
And definitions are really a special form of axioms.
I disagree. Axioms most often have their basis in observation
of reality. Definitions may also, but Wozzie is pretending he
is some sort of expert on definitions and axioms. He's not.
Ready to discuss it, yes, but not with a DK idiot.
I'm not interested in having a "discussion" with a liar like
Wozzie.
2)Could find a quoting where you admit that in the
context of GPS the word means something else.
The fact is that if one had an accurate 1 second
The fact is that outside of your mad church nobody
cares what your mad church is assuming accurate or
not.
And nobody cares about Wozzies's stupid nonsensical diatribes.
The fact is also that common sense was warning
your idiot guru.
Wozzie is a liar and a fool. He is also insane since he keeps
repeating the same old stupid line.
But you can keep fooling yourself insisting that
GPS has inaccurate clocks, why not; at least
you've (temporarily?) stopped to deny they're real.
Wozzie doesn't know the difference between reality and his fantasies.
per second clock
aboard the GPS, it would tick at exactly 1 second per second, but
it would not appear to from the ground. In fact, the first bird
up there had exactly that and it didn't tick at 1 second per second
at the ground. That's why they switched to the alternate timing.
See: even such pathetic pieces of fanatic shitlike you or Harrie can't lie 100% of time.
See? Wozzie lies ALL the time.
On a GPS satellite, the usual definition of the second applies.
No.
Yes!
No.
YES!!!
I could find a quoting in which even
that piece of shit Roberts is admitting it.
Wozzie says he can, but he's lying ... again.
Your ravings and spitting won't change anything,Common sense was warning your idiot guru, wasn't it?
The idiots were the engineers that disbelieved relativity.
Telling the truth is "raving and spitting" in Wozzie's fantasy
world.
Wozzie tells HALF the truth: the GPS clocks are accurate
Nobody cares what your mad church assumes accurate or not,
Harrie. Face it, poor trash.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Nobody cares what your mad church assumes accurate or not,
Harrie. Face it, poor trash.
Wozzie believes that if he posts last, he wins the duel :-))
He is such a tragic figure.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 325 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 85:36:40 |
| Calls: | 7,164 |
| Files: | 12,543 |
| Messages: | 5,534,422 |