• An experiment for the no-OWSL fundamentalists.

    From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 12 22:54:00 2023
    We do the following neo-Roemer One Way Speed of Light experiment.
    We have two experimenters, A and B,
    both at rest in the same inertial frame.

    Both have a state of the art atomic clock, of stability 10^-15
    with a 10 GHz oscilator and counter phase-locked to it,
    for a 0.1 nansecond read-out.

    B in addition has a triggered laser flasher,
    that emits 1 picosecond light pulses with exactly 1 second intervals.
    (as determined by the counter locked to B's clock)

    A detects the light pulses from B, and notes that these arrive
    at a fixed spacing from the pulses that his clock produces.
    Always the same advance or retard.

    Now B (slowly) moves his clock and flasher 1 meter closer to A.

    A, still tracking the incoming pulses from B,
    notices that they have advanced wrt his own pulses by 3.3 nanoseconds.

    A phones B, and says,
    Hey, I notice that your pulses are now arriving 3.3 nanseconds early.
    You must have moved your clock/flasher 1 meter closer to me.
    B says, yes indeed, good that you could measure it.
    A says: so I conclude that the one way speed of light from you to me
    must be 0.3 meter/nanosecond.
    B says: indeed, that is precisely my conclusion.

    Now for the no-OWSL fundies:
    please explain why this neo-Roemer experiment is not a OWSL measurement.

    Note that the distance A-B has not been measured,
    and that the clocks at A and B have not been synchronised.
    Note further that the light is only going one way.

    Jan


    PS The same experiment in slightly less idealised form
    is routinely done all the time in everyday practice,
    when tracking orbiting neutron stars, or spacecraft in the solar system,
    or yes, even Jovian satellites.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Sep 13 10:41:16 2023
    On 13-Sept-23 6:54 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    We do the following neo-Roemer One Way Speed of Light experiment.
    We have two experimenters, A and B,
    both at rest in the same inertial frame.

    Both have a state of the art atomic clock, of stability 10^-15
    with a 10 GHz oscilator and counter phase-locked to it,
    for a 0.1 nansecond read-out.

    B in addition has a triggered laser flasher,
    that emits 1 picosecond light pulses with exactly 1 second intervals.
    (as determined by the counter locked to B's clock)

    A detects the light pulses from B, and notes that these arrive
    at a fixed spacing from the pulses that his clock produces.
    Always the same advance or retard.

    Now B (slowly) moves his clock and flasher 1 meter closer to A.

    A, still tracking the incoming pulses from B,
    notices that they have advanced wrt his own pulses by 3.3 nanoseconds.

    A phones B, and says,
    Hey, I notice that your pulses are now arriving 3.3 nanseconds early.
    You must have moved your clock/flasher 1 meter closer to me.
    B says, yes indeed, good that you could measure it.
    A says: so I conclude that the one way speed of light from you to me
    must be 0.3 meter/nanosecond.
    B says: indeed, that is precisely my conclusion.

    Now for the no-OWSL fundies:
    please explain why this neo-Roemer experiment is not a OWSL measurement.

    Note that the distance A-B has not been measured,
    and that the clocks at A and B have not been synchronised.
    Note further that the light is only going one way.

    Jan


    PS The same experiment in slightly less idealised form
    is routinely done all the time in everyday practice,
    when tracking orbiting neutron stars, or spacecraft in the solar system,
    or yes, even Jovian satellites.





    The problem here is that you need a theory of space-time in order to
    determine what effect, if any, moving the clock has. The fact that the
    clock moves slowly counts for nothing before you have a theory that says
    that moving it slowly has no significant effect. So your theory has to
    precede the experiment, and contains within it the thing you're trying
    to prove.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Tue Sep 12 23:08:53 2023
    On Tuesday, 12 September 2023 at 22:54:03 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    We do the following neo-Roemer One Way Speed of Light experiment.
    We have two experimenters, A and B,
    both at rest in the same inertial frame.

    For innocent kiddies: as seen - the whole "experiment"
    has never happened, a relativistic clown has only
    fabricated it; and whatever he says - can't be derived
    in any form from any reality (he is admitting it
    himself), it's only driven by his insane his faith in his
    insane postulates.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Wed Sep 13 00:33:24 2023
    On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 08:08:56 UTC+2, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Tuesday, 12 September 2023 at 22:54:03 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    We do the following neo-Roemer One Way Speed of Light experiment.
    We have two experimenters, A and B,
    both at rest in the same inertial frame.
    For innocent kiddies: as seen - the whole "experiment"
    has never happened, a relativistic clown has only
    fabricated it; and whatever he says - can't be derived
    in any form from any reality (he is admitting it
    himself), it's only driven by his insane his faith in his
    insane postulates.

    And, again for innocent kiddies:
    A relativistic clown is determining meter according
    to his ISO. He may perform a ritual and announce
    "I HAVE MEASURED!!! IT'S C!!! LET'S PRAISE OUR GIANT
    GURU!!!!" - but in his setup the result of c is just
    a very simple tautology. It's as if you measured
    the real length of a 1m ruler by comparing it to
    1m ruler i.e. itself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Wed Sep 13 00:30:42 2023
    On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:41:20 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 13-Sept-23 6:54 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The problem here is that you need a theory of space-time in order to determine what effect, if any, moving the clock has. The fact that the
    clock moves slowly counts for nothing before you have a theory that says that moving it slowly has no significant effect. So your theory has to precede the experiment, and contains within it the thing you're trying
    to prove.

    More specifically, Mansouri & Sexl wrote, "Synchronization by the Einstein procedure and by slow clock transport turn out to be equivalent if and only if the time dilatation factor is given by the Einstein result (1−v^2)^(1/2). An
    ether theory is constructed that maintains absolute simultaneity and is kinematically equivalent to special relativity."
    General Relativity and Gravitation volume 8, pages 497–513 (1977)

    The ether theory that they develop is pretty freaky, but freakiness is not
    a valid reason to exclude a theory.

    I would, however, argue that although measurement of OWSL requires
    separated clocks, measurement of OWSL anisotropy does not require
    multiple clocks, merely a single stable oscillator.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Wed Sep 13 00:35:41 2023
    On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 09:30:44 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    I would, however, argue that although measurement of OWSL requires
    separated clocks, measurement of OWSL anisotropy does not require
    multiple clocks, merely a single stable oscillator.

    As expected from a relativistic clown - you haven't
    mentioned a prioiri assumption that it is c, which is
    also required.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Wed Sep 13 15:05:57 2023
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

    On 13-Sept-23 6:54 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    We do the following neo-Roemer One Way Speed of Light experiment.
    We have two experimenters, A and B,
    both at rest in the same inertial frame.

    Both have a state of the art atomic clock, of stability 10^-15
    with a 10 GHz oscilator and counter phase-locked to it,
    for a 0.1 nansecond read-out.

    B in addition has a triggered laser flasher,
    that emits 1 picosecond light pulses with exactly 1 second intervals.
    (as determined by the counter locked to B's clock)

    A detects the light pulses from B, and notes that these arrive
    at a fixed spacing from the pulses that his clock produces.
    Always the same advance or retard.

    Now B (slowly) moves his clock and flasher 1 meter closer to A.

    A, still tracking the incoming pulses from B,
    notices that they have advanced wrt his own pulses by 3.3 nanoseconds.

    A phones B, and says,
    Hey, I notice that your pulses are now arriving 3.3 nanseconds early.
    You must have moved your clock/flasher 1 meter closer to me.
    B says, yes indeed, good that you could measure it.
    A says: so I conclude that the one way speed of light from you to me
    must be 0.3 meter/nanosecond.
    B says: indeed, that is precisely my conclusion.

    Now for the no-OWSL fundies:
    please explain why this neo-Roemer experiment is not a OWSL measurement.

    Note that the distance A-B has not been measured,
    and that the clocks at A and B have not been synchronised.
    Note further that the light is only going one way.

    Jan


    PS The same experiment in slightly less idealised form
    is routinely done all the time in everyday practice,
    when tracking orbiting neutron stars, or spacecraft in the solar system,
    or yes, even Jovian satellites.

    The problem here is that you need a theory of space-time in order to determine what effect, if any, moving the clock has. The fact that the
    clock moves slowly counts for nothing before you have a theory that says
    that moving it slowly has no significant effect. So your theory has to precede the experiment, and contains within it the thing you're trying
    to prove.

    This does not answer the question of why
    this isn't a one way speed of light measurement.

    Nothing is assumed, it is just an experiment.
    (that results in 0.3 m/nanosecond)
    And one may verify experimentally that the result does not depend
    on the way in which the clock is moved. (if non-relativistically)

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Sep 13 06:20:24 2023
    On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 15:06:01 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:

    On 13-Sept-23 6:54 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    We do the following neo-Roemer One Way Speed of Light experiment.
    We have two experimenters, A and B,
    both at rest in the same inertial frame.

    Both have a state of the art atomic clock, of stability 10^-15
    with a 10 GHz oscilator and counter phase-locked to it,
    for a 0.1 nansecond read-out.

    B in addition has a triggered laser flasher,
    that emits 1 picosecond light pulses with exactly 1 second intervals.
    (as determined by the counter locked to B's clock)

    A detects the light pulses from B, and notes that these arrive
    at a fixed spacing from the pulses that his clock produces.
    Always the same advance or retard.

    Now B (slowly) moves his clock and flasher 1 meter closer to A.

    A, still tracking the incoming pulses from B,
    notices that they have advanced wrt his own pulses by 3.3 nanoseconds.

    A phones B, and says,
    Hey, I notice that your pulses are now arriving 3.3 nanseconds early.
    You must have moved your clock/flasher 1 meter closer to me.
    B says, yes indeed, good that you could measure it.
    A says: so I conclude that the one way speed of light from you to me
    must be 0.3 meter/nanosecond.
    B says: indeed, that is precisely my conclusion.

    Now for the no-OWSL fundies:
    please explain why this neo-Roemer experiment is not a OWSL measurement.

    Note that the distance A-B has not been measured,
    and that the clocks at A and B have not been synchronised.
    Note further that the light is only going one way.

    Jan


    PS The same experiment in slightly less idealised form
    is routinely done all the time in everyday practice,
    when tracking orbiting neutron stars, or spacecraft in the solar system, or yes, even Jovian satellites.

    The problem here is that you need a theory of space-time in order to determine what effect, if any, moving the clock has. The fact that the clock moves slowly counts for nothing before you have a theory that says that moving it slowly has no significant effect. So your theory has to precede the experiment, and contains within it the thing you're trying
    to prove.
    This does not answer the question of why
    this isn't a one way speed of light measurement.

    Nothing is assumed, it is just an experiment.

    Nothing assumed, you say. Oh, really? During
    the experiment you have to determine a meter.
    How do you do it, poor halfbrain?

    There are 3 significant approaches
    to determine a meter in the history of
    human metrology.
    - based on a ruler
    - based on Earth meridian
    - based on light speed
    which one is yours, for the purpose of
    this experiment? No, they are not going to
    give the same results. But they all are assuming
    something.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Wed Sep 13 08:38:41 2023
    On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 9:20:27 AM UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    ... During
    the experiment you have to determine a meter.
    How do you do it, poor halfbrain?

    There are 3 significant approaches
    to determine a meter in the history of
    human metrology.
    - based on a ruler

    This has shown to be somewhat inaccurate; everybody gets slightly different results.

    - based on Earth meridian

    This has shown to be very inaccurate; everybody gets hugely different results.

    - based on light speed

    This has shown to be very accurate; everybody gets the same results.

    So tell me quarter brain, which definition should one use?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to rotchm on Wed Sep 13 10:04:48 2023
    On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 17:38:44 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
    On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 9:20:27 AM UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    ... During
    the experiment you have to determine a meter.
    How do you do it, poor halfbrain?

    There are 3 significant approaches
    to determine a meter in the history of
    human metrology.
    - based on a ruler
    This has shown to be somewhat inaccurate; everybody gets slightly different results.
    - based on Earth meridian
    This has shown to be very inaccurate; everybody gets hugely different results.

    How, precisely, was it shown to be inaccurate, poor
    halfbrain? Yes, it's giving the results violating
    the prophecies of your idiot guru. Too bad, as
    THIS ONE was the one assumed valid when the
    idiot lived and mumbled, so - his moronic prophecies
    were a logical impossibility.


    - based on light speed
    This has shown to be very accurate; everybody gets the same results.

    So tell me quarter brain, which definition should one use?

    One should use the one most convenient to himself.
    Not neceessarily the one most convenient to an insane
    guru and his bunch of religious maniacs.

    Anyway, yes, assumptions are present in your precious
    measurements, and the results vary depending on them.
    You've just admitted it.
    You're free to rave it's unphysical - nobody cares. It's real,
    and if your moronic physics doesn't like it it's free to go
    fuck itself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Wed Sep 13 17:09:14 2023
    On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:04:50 PM UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    - based on Earth meridian
    This has shown to be very inaccurate; everybody gets hugely different results.
    How, precisely, was it shown to be inaccurate, poor

    You really don't know?? Are you that dumb?

    Yes, it's giving the results violating
    the prophecies of your idiot guru.

    You are very confused. The meter via "earth meridian" was way before relativity.
    The meter via earth meridian was inconsistent with itself. Independent "metrologist" would compare their meters, and all their length greatly differed.
    that's why such an operational procedure was dropped: reenacting it gave different results.

    One should use the one most convenient to himself.

    And that is what is done in physics and in real life.

    Not neceessarily the one most convenient to an insane
    guru and his bunch of religious maniacs.

    So you admit that the current definition of 'meter' is the one to go by.
    Glad you finally agree, although you don't realize that you just agreed with the 'SR fanatics'.
    that's how confused you are.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Sep 13 18:36:41 2023
    On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 1:54:03 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    We do the following neo-Roemer One Way Speed of Light experiment.
    We have two experimenters, A and B,
    both at rest in the same inertial frame.

    Both have a state of the art atomic clock, of stability 10^-15
    with a 10 GHz oscilator and counter phase-locked to it,
    for a 0.1 nansecond read-out.

    B in addition has a triggered laser flasher,
    that emits 1 picosecond light pulses with exactly 1 second intervals.
    (as determined by the counter locked to B's clock)

    A detects the light pulses from B, and notes that these arrive
    at a fixed spacing from the pulses that his clock produces.
    Always the same advance or retard.

    Now B (slowly) moves his clock and flasher 1 meter closer to A.

    A, still tracking the incoming pulses from B,
    notices that they have advanced wrt his own pulses by 3.3 nanoseconds.

    A phones B, and says,
    Hey, I notice that your pulses are now arriving 3.3 nanseconds early.
    You must have moved your clock/flasher 1 meter closer to me.
    B says, yes indeed, good that you could measure it.
    A says: so I conclude that the one way speed of light from you to me
    must be 0.3 meter/nanosecond.
    B says: indeed, that is precisely my conclusion.

    Now for the no-OWSL fundies:
    please explain why this neo-Roemer experiment is not a OWSL measurement.

    Note that the distance A-B has not been measured,
    and that the clocks at A and B have not been synchronised.
    Note further that the light is only going one way.

    Jan


    PS The same experiment in slightly less idealised form
    is routinely done all the time in everyday practice,
    when tracking orbiting neutron stars, or spacecraft in the solar system,
    or yes, even Jovian satellites.

    I kind of wonder if when "A phones B" that it's like,
    "yes, this is Roemer. I'm sort of like Planck, I made the convention
    for a discretization under a power law like Planck and for quantum
    mechanics, thus this discretization results under my regime".

    Or, "Roemer and Maxwell are considered close friends",
    they don't even talk to each other.

    Classical optics and parallax is for some usual "peripheral parallax",
    and what I mean by that is when the strobe effect, is from a rotating
    source, instead of a blinking source. (When not "classical optics,
    including visual model of perspective", when "field effect continuum dynamics".)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Wed Sep 13 22:53:05 2023
    On 9/13/2023 1:04 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 17:38:44 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
    On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 9:20:27 AM UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    ... During
    the experiment you have to determine a meter.
    How do you do it, poor halfbrain?

    There are 3 significant approaches
    to determine a meter in the history of
    human metrology.
    - based on a ruler

    This has shown to be somewhat inaccurate; everybody gets slightly different results.

    - based on Earth meridian

    This has shown to be very inaccurate; everybody gets hugely different results.

    How, precisely, was it shown to be inaccurate, poor
    halfbrain?

    Because different scientists obtained different values for the meter,
    poor smoothbrain.

    Because even the same scientist obtained different values for the meter
    at different times.

    I've been to Ecuador; specifically the "Middle of the World City" park,
    located exactly on the equator according to them. Cool place, it's a
    tourist trap where there's a line marking the equator so you can have
    one foot in the northern hemisphere and the other in the southern or
    jump back and forth as I did ("Summer!" "Winter!" "Summer!" "Winter!"),
    a giant globe mounted sideways (a view rarely seen; its axis is parallel
    to Earth's axis) on a monument, locals who will "demonstrate" how
    draining water forms counterclockwise whirlpools north of the equator
    and clockwise south of the equator* and so forth.

    The only problem is, it's about 240 meters south of the actual equator. (coordinates: 0°00′08″S 78°27′21″W)
    How would you expect to get the correct length of a line from the north
    pole to the equator if you can't even place the equator in the right
    place? Not to mention correctly locating the north pole.

    There's a nearby tourist site that also claims to be on the equator. It
    is at least closer; the GPS app on my phone said the marked equator
    wasn't, and the equator would really be about on the center line of a
    busy road in front of the place. I didn't bother trying to get a picture
    of my phone claiming a latitude of 0°00′00″N there, road too busy.
    Google Satellite View agrees with my phone, I just checked.

    Now ponder that, poor smoothbrain, if you can.

    (*) yes, I know it's fake, we played along a little anyway.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to rotchm on Wed Sep 13 21:10:04 2023
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 02:09:17 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
    On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:04:50 PM UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    - based on Earth meridian
    This has shown to be very inaccurate; everybody gets hugely different results.
    How, precisely, was it shown to be inaccurate, poor
    You really don't know?? Are you that dumb?
    Yes, it's giving the results violating
    the prophecies of your idiot guru.
    You are very confused. The meter via "earth meridian" was way before relativity.


    It was way before relativity, and up to 1960.
    During the whole life of your idiot guru


    The meter via earth meridian was inconsistent with itself. Independent


    Go fuck yourself, trash. There are assumptions in
    your precious measurements, they were always there,
    and the results vary depending on them.


    So you admit that the current definition of 'meter' is the one to go by.

    No, I don't. You're fabricating and lying. As
    always.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to rotchm on Wed Sep 13 22:12:00 2023
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 02:09:17 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

    One should use the one most convenient to himself.
    And that is what is done in physics and in real life.

    In real life -sure, so, as anyone can check (GPS, TAI)
    the selection of refarences in the real world is different
    than the religious precepts of your bunch of idiots.

    Nobody is going to use your insane concept of meter,
    samely as they don't use your even more insane concept
    of second. Sorry, trash.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Sep 13 21:16:35 2023
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 04:53:12 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 9/13/2023 1:04 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 17:38:44 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
    On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 9:20:27 AM UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    ... During
    the experiment you have to determine a meter.
    How do you do it, poor halfbrain?

    There are 3 significant approaches
    to determine a meter in the history of
    human metrology.
    - based on a ruler

    This has shown to be somewhat inaccurate; everybody gets slightly different results.

    - based on Earth meridian

    This has shown to be very inaccurate; everybody gets hugely different results.

    How, precisely, was it shown to be inaccurate, poor
    halfbrain?
    Because different scientists obtained different values for the meter,

    If they were unable to do it correctly, stupid Mike...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Sep 14 11:35:04 2023
    On 2023-09-13 13:05:57 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

    The problem here is that you need a theory of space-time in order to
    determine what effect, if any, moving the clock has. The fact that the
    clock moves slowly counts for nothing before you have a theory that says
    that moving it slowly has no significant effect. So your theory has to
    precede the experiment, and contains within it the thing you're trying
    to prove.

    This does not answer the question of why
    this isn't a one way speed of light measurement.

    It does.

    Nothing is assumed, it is just an experiment.

    Without assuming that the clock when the second set of light pulses is
    emitted is sybcronized to the same clock when the first set of light
    pulses was emitted.

    (that results in 0.3 m/nanosecond)

    which is the combination of effects from the difference in light path
    length and the change of emitter's clock synchronization.

    And one may verify experimentally that the result does not depend
    on the way in which the clock is moved. (if non-relativistically)

    Which means that the direction dependency in light speed is opposite
    to the direction dependency of the change in clock syncronization.

    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Sep 14 12:02:46 2023
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/13/2023 1:04 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 17:38:44 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
    On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 9:20:27?AM UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    ... During
    the experiment you have to determine a meter.
    How do you do it, poor halfbrain?

    There are 3 significant approaches to determine a meter in the history >>> of human metrology. - based on a ruler This has shown to be somewhat
    inaccurate; everybody gets slightly different results. - based on
    Earth meridian This has shown to be very inaccurate; everybody gets
    hugely different results.

    How, precisely, was it shown to be inaccurate, poor
    halfbrain?

    Because different scientists obtained different values for the meter,
    poor smoothbrain.

    Because even the same scientist obtained different values for the meter
    at different times.

    I've been to Ecuador; specifically the "Middle of the World City" park, located exactly on the equator according to them. Cool place, it's a
    tourist trap where there's a line marking the equator so you can have
    one foot in the northern hemisphere and the other in the southern or
    jump back and forth as I did ("Summer!" "Winter!" "Summer!" "Winter!"),
    a giant globe mounted sideways (a view rarely seen; its axis is parallel
    to Earth's axis) on a monument, locals who will "demonstrate" how
    draining water forms counterclockwise whirlpools north of the equator
    and clockwise south of the equator* and so forth.

    ??? That is just an ordinary 'equatorial mounting'.
    It is by far the most common mounting for globes.
    In other places the axle will be at their local inclination.
    On some globe mountings it is adjustable.

    The only problem is, it's about 240 meters south of the actual equator. (coordinates: 000?08?S 7827?21?W)

    The same happens in Greenwich,
    where the GPS zero meridian is about 100 m off
    from that line on the ground in the observatory.

    How would you expect to get the correct length of a line from the north
    pole to the equator if you can't even place the equator in the right
    place? Not to mention correctly locating the north pole.

    Yes, but which one is the 'true' or 'actual' equator?
    What your GPS does is measure your position in 3D,
    with respect to the GPS constellation.
    This needs to be projected onto a representation
    of the surface of the Earth to obtain coordinates.
    This representation of the Earth is called the 'datum'.
    If you have a real GPS receiver, not just a phone,
    there is a whole slew of datums you can choose from.
    One of them is not a-priori better than all the others.

    It is just that the designers of the GPS system have a prefered one,
    called WGS84, that is used as the default.

    BTW, I don't know how they handle the wobble of the Earth's axis.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to rotchm on Thu Sep 14 12:02:46 2023
    rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 9:20:27?AM UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    ... During
    the experiment you have to determine a meter.
    How do you do it, poor halfbrain?

    There are 3 significant approaches
    to determine a meter in the history of
    human metrology.
    - based on a ruler

    This has shown to be somewhat inaccurate; everybody gets slightly
    different results.

    For metrological reasons the only length standard
    that was practically possible consisted of two scratches
    on a (preferrably metal) bar.
    The practical problem was that there were so many different ones.

    The measuring of the meridian was an heroic propaganda excercise
    that succeeded in declaring that this particular set of scratches
    was to be preferred by everyone.
    (replacing all those toises, rods, feet, thumbs, fathoms, and so on)
    It is unfortunate that they lost the Americans
    (Jefferson) at this stage.

    - based on Earth meridian

    This has shown to be very inaccurate; everybody gets hugely different results.

    As a matter of fact, this never happened.
    The meridian was never remeasured to get a more accurate meter.
    All other meter bars were copies made after the Parisian original.

    - based on light speed

    This has shown to be very accurate; everybody gets the same results.

    Not too surprising: there are only a few standards labs in the world
    in which they are capable of actually realising the meter.
    (as a secondary standard)

    All others take it from them,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Sep 14 03:45:41 2023
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 12:02:49 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    It is just that the designers of the GPS system have a prefered one,
    called WGS84, that is used as the default.

    They know they job, they know that postulating
    and maintaining a separate frame of reference - not
    just for everyone of some billions of people/observers,
    but also for every fucken muon - would be a true and
    obvious madness.
    Physicists can only do it, because it's not for real, it's
    for gedanken.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Sep 14 03:48:21 2023
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 12:41:39 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Again: There is no clock synchronisation.

    Again: you need it determine a meter
    of your moronic definition.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Mikko on Thu Sep 14 12:41:35 2023
    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-13 13:05:57 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

    The problem here is that you need a theory of space-time in order to
    determine what effect, if any, moving the clock has. The fact that the
    clock moves slowly counts for nothing before you have a theory that says >> that moving it slowly has no significant effect. So your theory has to
    precede the experiment, and contains within it the thing you're trying
    to prove.

    This does not answer the question of why
    this isn't a one way speed of light measurement.

    It does.

    Nothing is assumed, it is just an experiment.

    Without assuming that the clock when the second set of light pulses is emitted is sybcronized to the same clock when the first set of light
    pulses was emitted.

    You misunderstood the set-up.
    The clocks are NOT synchronised. (except with themselves)
    The only assumption that is made is that the clocks
    run at a constant rate.
    (or more generally, that the laws of physics do not change with time)

    (that results in 0.3 m/nanosecond)

    which is the combination of effects from the difference in light path
    length and the change of emitter's clock synchronization.

    Again: There is no clock synchronisation.

    And one may verify experimentally that the result does not depend
    on the way in which the clock is moved. (if non-relativistically)

    Which means that the direction dependency in light speed is opposite
    to the direction dependency of the change in clock syncronization.

    Indeed. Since the one-way speed of light has been measured
    one can verify the equallity of the speed of light
    when it is going in different directions.
    I'll come back to that in the next posting,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Sep 14 12:26:46 2023
    On 9/14/2023 12:16 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 04:53:12 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 9/13/2023 1:04 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 17:38:44 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
    On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 9:20:27 AM UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    ... During
    the experiment you have to determine a meter.
    How do you do it, poor halfbrain?

    There are 3 significant approaches
    to determine a meter in the history of
    human metrology.
    - based on a ruler

    This has shown to be somewhat inaccurate; everybody gets slightly different results.

    - based on Earth meridian

    This has shown to be very inaccurate; everybody gets hugely different results.

    How, precisely, was it shown to be inaccurate, poor
    halfbrain?
    Because different scientists obtained different values for the meter,

    If they were unable to do it correctly, stupid Mike...

    These were the best scientists of the time. They were the most able in
    the world. The problem was the error bars were too large, trying to
    survey the meridians couldn't be done accurately, the earth was wobbly, probably tides and continental drift (unknown then), etc., etc.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Sep 14 12:16:48 2023
    On 9/14/2023 1:12 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 02:09:17 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

    One should use the one most convenient to himself.

    And that is what is done in physics and in real life.

    In real life -sure, so, as anyone can check (GPS, TAI)
    the selection of refarences in the real world is different
    than the religious precepts of your bunch of idiots.

    Still not even wrong.

    Nobody is going to use your insane concept of meter,
    samely as they don't use your even more insane concept
    of second. Sorry, trash.

    Sorry but anything that depends on the precision of knowing the length
    of the meter will use that definition, or of things which use that
    definition. Which will be more and more as obsolete references get used
    less and less.

    Heck, even the metric-system-resistant Americans use the metric system
    for length, without most knowing it! You see, at some point in the past,
    the inch was redefined to be 2.54 cm (exactly) instead of whatever it
    was, grains of barley or something more modern, previously. But the
    "new" definition was chosen to be so close to the previous one that it
    didn't matter. A bolt created with the old definition of 24 threads/inch
    will accept a nut created with the new definition of 24 threads/inch
    without jamming. Etc. etc.

    Same with the new definition of meter, 1/299792458 the distance light
    travels in one second. That magic 299792458 came from the best measures
    of the speed of light using the old system so nobody but the best labs
    can tell the difference between the new and old definitions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Sep 14 12:42:21 2023
    On 9/14/2023 6:02 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/13/2023 1:04 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 17:38:44 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
    On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 9:20:27?AM UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    ... During
    the experiment you have to determine a meter.
    How do you do it, poor halfbrain?

    There are 3 significant approaches to determine a meter in the history >>>>> of human metrology. - based on a ruler This has shown to be somewhat >>>>> inaccurate; everybody gets slightly different results. - based on
    Earth meridian This has shown to be very inaccurate; everybody gets
    hugely different results.

    How, precisely, was it shown to be inaccurate, poor
    halfbrain?

    Because different scientists obtained different values for the meter,
    poor smoothbrain.

    Because even the same scientist obtained different values for the meter
    at different times.

    I've been to Ecuador; specifically the "Middle of the World City" park,
    located exactly on the equator according to them. Cool place, it's a
    tourist trap where there's a line marking the equator so you can have
    one foot in the northern hemisphere and the other in the southern or
    jump back and forth as I did ("Summer!" "Winter!" "Summer!" "Winter!"),
    a giant globe mounted sideways (a view rarely seen; its axis is parallel
    to Earth's axis) on a monument, locals who will "demonstrate" how
    draining water forms counterclockwise whirlpools north of the equator
    and clockwise south of the equator* and so forth.

    ??? That is just an ordinary 'equatorial mounting'.
    It is by far the most common mounting for globes.

    No, I have never seen that before. Definitely NOT the most common
    mounting in the US or Britain. All globes I've seen have the earth
    mounted so that the North Pole is ~23 degrees from directly up/down,
    implying the orbital plane is the horizontal. Perhaps this is a cultural
    thing where many countries do mount globes with the rotation axis
    horizontal instead of 23 degrees off vertical. For all I know, Australia
    mounts their globes so that the South Pole is up. :-) But I don't make a
    habit studying how globes are mounted worldwide.

    In other places the axle will be at their local inclination.
    On some globe mountings it is adjustable.

    The only problem is, it's about 240 meters south of the actual equator.
    (coordinates: 0°00?08?S 78°27?21?W)

    The same happens in Greenwich,
    where the GPS zero meridian is about 100 m off
    from that line on the ground in the observatory.

    Geez, they couldn't even get the definition correct!

    How would you expect to get the correct length of a line from the north
    pole to the equator if you can't even place the equator in the right
    place? Not to mention correctly locating the north pole.

    Yes, but which one is the 'true' or 'actual' equator?
    What your GPS does is measure your position in 3D,
    with respect to the GPS constellation.
    This needs to be projected onto a representation
    of the surface of the Earth to obtain coordinates.
    This representation of the Earth is called the 'datum'.
    If you have a real GPS receiver, not just a phone,
    there is a whole slew of datums you can choose from.
    One of them is not a-priori better than all the others.

    But there should be a well defined equator at all times even if it
    changes, since at any time there are two points where the rotational
    axis meets the surface with the equator exactly halfway between them. Complicated by the fact that the earth isn't a sphere or even an oblate spheroid, so at some point surveyors literally had to put a stake in the
    ground and start using references such as WGS84.

    It is just that the designers of the GPS system have a prefered one,
    called WGS84, that is used as the default.

    BTW, I don't know how they handle the wobble of the Earth's axis.

    Jan




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Sep 14 11:40:32 2023
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 18:26:51 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 9/14/2023 12:16 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 04:53:12 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 9/13/2023 1:04 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 17:38:44 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
    On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 9:20:27 AM UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    ... During
    the experiment you have to determine a meter.
    How do you do it, poor halfbrain?

    There are 3 significant approaches
    to determine a meter in the history of
    human metrology.
    - based on a ruler

    This has shown to be somewhat inaccurate; everybody gets slightly different results.

    - based on Earth meridian

    This has shown to be very inaccurate; everybody gets hugely different results.

    How, precisely, was it shown to be inaccurate, poor
    halfbrain?
    Because different scientists obtained different values for the meter,

    If they were unable to do it correctly, stupid Mike...
    These were the best scientists of the time. They were the most able in
    the world. The problem was the error bars were too large, trying to
    survey the meridians couldn't be done accurately, the earth was wobbly, probably tides and continental drift (unknown then), etc., etc.

    The problems are an usual and acceptable thing, stupid Mike.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Sep 14 11:39:17 2023
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 18:16:56 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 9/14/2023 1:12 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 02:09:17 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

    One should use the one most convenient to himself.

    And that is what is done in physics and in real life.

    In real life -sure, so, as anyone can check (GPS, TAI)
    the selection of refarences in the real world is different
    than the religious precepts of your bunch of idiots.
    Still not even wrong.

    Nobody is going to use your insane concept of meter,
    samely as they don't use your even more insane concept
    of second. Sorry, trash.

    Sorry but anything that depends on the precision of knowing the length
    of the meter will use that definition

    Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
    set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
    No, they are not. Do you know, why?
    Well, precision is required there.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Sep 14 21:54:44 2023
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/14/2023 1:12 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 02:09:17 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

    One should use the one most convenient to himself.

    And that is what is done in physics and in real life.

    In real life -sure, so, as anyone can check (GPS, TAI)
    the selection of refarences in the real world is different
    than the religious precepts of your bunch of idiots.

    Still not even wrong.

    Nobody is going to use your insane concept of meter,
    samely as they don't use your even more insane concept
    of second. Sorry, trash.

    Sorry but anything that depends on the precision of knowing the length
    of the meter will use that definition, or of things which use that definition. Which will be more and more as obsolete references get used
    less and less.

    Heck, even the metric-system-resistant Americans use the metric system
    for length, without most knowing it! You see, at some point in the past,
    the inch was redefined to be 2.54 cm (exactly) instead of whatever it
    was, grains of barley or something more modern, previously. But the
    "new" definition was chosen to be so close to the previous one that it
    didn't matter. A bolt created with the old definition of 24 threads/inch
    will accept a nut created with the new definition of 24 threads/inch
    without jamming. Etc. etc.

    One of the problems was that the US inch and the British inch
    were different. So the definition of 2.54cm (exacly) was a compromise.
    IIRC the decision was made for them by a firm (with market dominance)
    that made gauge blocks, and by industries that adapted those.
    All this happened well before WWII.
    A very good thing, as it turned out, for it meant for example
    that American firms could start mass production
    of Rolls Royce Merlin engines to power their Mustang fighters,
    without re-tooling.

    Same with the new definition of meter, 1/299792458 the distance light
    travels in one second. That magic 299792458 came from the best measures
    of the speed of light using the old system so nobody but the best labs
    can tell the difference between the new and old definitions.

    The new definition is several orders of magnitude more accurate
    and reproducible than the previous one,
    so a comparison is rather meaningless,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Sep 14 18:13:48 2023
    On 9/14/2023 2:39 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 18:16:56 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 9/14/2023 1:12 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 02:09:17 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

    One should use the one most convenient to himself.

    And that is what is done in physics and in real life.

    In real life -sure, so, as anyone can check (GPS, TAI)
    the selection of refarences in the real world is different
    than the religious precepts of your bunch of idiots.
    Still not even wrong.

    Nobody is going to use your insane concept of meter,
    samely as they don't use your even more insane concept
    of second. Sorry, trash.

    Sorry but anything that depends on the precision of knowing the length
    of the meter will use that definition

    Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
    set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?

    Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
    frequency (9192631774.1) which corresponds to a clock on earth being
    9192631770 cycles, taking GR into account.

    Do you know, why?

    Why you are always wrong? I don't know, but I suspect you fell on your
    head as a child. Hard.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Sep 14 18:06:55 2023
    On 9/14/2023 3:54 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/14/2023 1:12 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 02:09:17 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

    One should use the one most convenient to himself.

    And that is what is done in physics and in real life.

    In real life -sure, so, as anyone can check (GPS, TAI)
    the selection of refarences in the real world is different
    than the religious precepts of your bunch of idiots.

    Still not even wrong.

    Nobody is going to use your insane concept of meter,
    samely as they don't use your even more insane concept
    of second. Sorry, trash.

    Sorry but anything that depends on the precision of knowing the length
    of the meter will use that definition, or of things which use that
    definition. Which will be more and more as obsolete references get used
    less and less.

    Heck, even the metric-system-resistant Americans use the metric system
    for length, without most knowing it! You see, at some point in the past,
    the inch was redefined to be 2.54 cm (exactly) instead of whatever it
    was, grains of barley or something more modern, previously. But the
    "new" definition was chosen to be so close to the previous one that it
    didn't matter. A bolt created with the old definition of 24 threads/inch
    will accept a nut created with the new definition of 24 threads/inch
    without jamming. Etc. etc.

    One of the problems was that the US inch and the British inch
    were different. So the definition of 2.54cm (exacly) was a compromise.
    IIRC the decision was made for them by a firm (with market dominance)
    that made gauge blocks, and by industries that adapted those.
    All this happened well before WWII.
    A very good thing, as it turned out, for it meant for example
    that American firms could start mass production
    of Rolls Royce Merlin engines to power their Mustang fighters,
    without re-tooling.

    Thanks for the history. I wonder how, since the US started as a British
    colony, the inches were different. No need to answer, I'll google it.

    Same with the new definition of meter, 1/299792458 the distance light
    travels in one second. That magic 299792458 came from the best measures
    of the speed of light using the old system so nobody but the best labs
    can tell the difference between the new and old definitions.

    The new definition is several orders of magnitude more accurate
    and reproducible than the previous one,
    so a comparison is rather meaningless,

    I think the previous definition was a certain number of wavelengths of Krypton-86, so I'd think that it was quite accurate. The definition
    before, some rod in Paris, would certainly be less accurate.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Sep 14 18:20:59 2023
    On 9/14/2023 3:54 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    But there should be a well defined equator at all times even if it
    changes, since at any time there are two points where the rotational
    axis meets the surface with the equator exactly halfway between them.

    That is a very bad definition indeed,
    for the geoid is quite irregular. (to this accuracy)
    You wouldn't want a wavy equator.
    WGS84 is a 'best fit' in some sense
    of an ellipsoid of rotation to the geoid.

    Complicated by the fact that the earth isn't a sphere or even an oblate
    spheroid, so at some point surveyors literally had to put a stake in the
    ground and start using references such as WGS84.

    In the Atlantic Ocean, in fact, off the coast of Africa,
    (cartographers can compute)

    Jan

    (it is called Null Island, and there is a weather buoy moored there) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_Island>

    I would have thought the British, arrogant as they were, would claim the
    marked point at Greenwich was 0' longitude, by definition, no matter
    what, end of discussion. Any errors would mean that Null Island weather
    buoy would have to be moved.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Sep 14 21:58:35 2023
    On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 9/14/2023 2:39 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 18:16:56 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 9/14/2023 1:12 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 02:09:17 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

    One should use the one most convenient to himself.

    And that is what is done in physics and in real life.

    In real life -sure, so, as anyone can check (GPS, TAI)
    the selection of refarences in the real world is different
    than the religious precepts of your bunch of idiots.
    Still not even wrong.

    Nobody is going to use your insane concept of meter,
    samely as they don't use your even more insane concept
    of second. Sorry, trash.

    Sorry but anything that depends on the precision of knowing the length
    of the meter will use that definition

    Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
    set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
    Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course.

    Is 9 192 631 774,1 equal to 9 192 631 770 for you,
    stupid Mike? Or just "indirectly" equal?


    They are set to a
    frequency (9192631774.1) which corresponds

    Your ISO/proper time idiocy is not about setting clocks to
    correspond. It's about setting them to 9 192 631 770.

    For your bunch of idiots it doesn't matter that clocks will
    not correspond or work, they are to obey your religious mania.
    Nope, they won't, we will jeep ignoring your mania and
    your ISO idiocies. That's what precision requires.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Sep 15 10:56:14 2023
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/14/2023 3:54 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/14/2023 1:12 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 02:09:17 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

    One should use the one most convenient to himself.

    And that is what is done in physics and in real life.

    In real life -sure, so, as anyone can check (GPS, TAI)
    the selection of refarences in the real world is different
    than the religious precepts of your bunch of idiots.

    Still not even wrong.

    Nobody is going to use your insane concept of meter,
    samely as they don't use your even more insane concept
    of second. Sorry, trash.

    Sorry but anything that depends on the precision of knowing the length
    of the meter will use that definition, or of things which use that
    definition. Which will be more and more as obsolete references get used
    less and less.

    Heck, even the metric-system-resistant Americans use the metric system
    for length, without most knowing it! You see, at some point in the past, >> the inch was redefined to be 2.54 cm (exactly) instead of whatever it
    was, grains of barley or something more modern, previously. But the
    "new" definition was chosen to be so close to the previous one that it
    didn't matter. A bolt created with the old definition of 24 threads/inch >> will accept a nut created with the new definition of 24 threads/inch
    without jamming. Etc. etc.

    One of the problems was that the US inch and the British inch
    were different. So the definition of 2.54cm (exacly) was a compromise.
    IIRC the decision was made for them by a firm (with market dominance)
    that made gauge blocks, and by industries that adapted those.
    All this happened well before WWII.
    A very good thing, as it turned out, for it meant for example
    that American firms could start mass production
    of Rolls Royce Merlin engines to power their Mustang fighters,
    without re-tooling.

    Thanks for the history. I wonder how, since the US started as a British colony, the inches were different. No need to answer, I'll google it.

    You'll also find that the USA is now, finally, at long last,
    going to abolish the US Survey foot, which equals 12 old US inches. <https://www.nist.gov/pml/us-surveyfoot>
    Another small step away from the middle ages.

    Same with the new definition of meter, 1/299792458 the distance light
    travels in one second. That magic 299792458 came from the best measures
    of the speed of light using the old system so nobody but the best labs
    can tell the difference between the new and old definitions.

    The new definition is several orders of magnitude more accurate
    and reproducible than the previous one,
    so a comparison is rather meaningless,

    I think the previous definition was a certain number of wavelengths of Krypton-86, so I'd think that it was quite accurate. The definition
    before, some rod in Paris, would certainly be less accurate.

    Certainly, quite accurate, but present day frequency standards,
    hence secondary meter standards, reach accuracies in the 10^-11 range.
    (so about 0.01 nanometer, or a fifth of the Bohr radius)
    There is no way that a standard based on an optical line can match that.
    (being limited to a fraction of a fringe, so a few nanometer at best)

    Most people just have no idea at all
    about the precision revolution that has taken place.
    For example, at ASML, they make EUV lithography machines
    that can produce chips with a few nanometer grid spacing.
    Succesive patterns must laid down with sub-nanometer accuracy.
    Your latest iPhone depends on it.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Sep 15 12:11:25 2023
    On 2023-09-14 10:41:35 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-13 13:05:57 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

    The problem here is that you need a theory of space-time in order to
    determine what effect, if any, moving the clock has. The fact that the >>>> clock moves slowly counts for nothing before you have a theory that says >>>> that moving it slowly has no significant effect. So your theory has to >>>> precede the experiment, and contains within it the thing you're trying >>>> to prove.

    This does not answer the question of why
    this isn't a one way speed of light measurement.

    It does.

    Nothing is assumed, it is just an experiment.

    Without assuming that the clock when the second set of light pulses is
    emitted is sybcronized to the same clock when the first set of light
    pulses was emitted.

    You misunderstood the set-up.

    No, I did not. The description was perfectly clear.

    The clocks are NOT synchronised. (except with themselves)

    As I said, to itself at anther time.

    The only assumption that is made is that the clocks
    run at a constant rate.

    That is another way to say what I said.
    The point is, this is an assumption, so "Nothing is assumed" is false.

    (or more generally, that the laws of physics do not change with time)

    That is not the same thing. Anyway, finding out the laws is much more
    difficult if they do change with time. Fortunately the assumption has
    never been refuted.

    (that results in 0.3 m/nanosecond)

    which is the combination of effects from the difference in light path
    length and the change of emitter's clock synchronization.

    Again: There is no clock synchronisation.

    There is: you get a different result if you desysnchronize the clock
    (e.g., stop it and then start again) when you move it.

    And one may verify experimentally that the result does not depend
    on the way in which the clock is moved. (if non-relativistically)

    Which means that the direction dependency in light speed is opposite
    to the direction dependency of the change in clock syncronization.

    Indeed. Since the one-way speed of light has been measured
    one can verify the equallity of the speed of light
    when it is going in different directions.

    Only under the assumtion discussed above. There is no separate
    verification of that assumption. Without the assumtion there
    is no one way measurement.

    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Sep 15 02:10:29 2023
    On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 10:56:17 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/14/2023 3:54 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/14/2023 1:12 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 02:09:17 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

    One should use the one most convenient to himself.

    And that is what is done in physics and in real life.

    In real life -sure, so, as anyone can check (GPS, TAI)
    the selection of refarences in the real world is different
    than the religious precepts of your bunch of idiots.

    Still not even wrong.

    Nobody is going to use your insane concept of meter,
    samely as they don't use your even more insane concept
    of second. Sorry, trash.

    Sorry but anything that depends on the precision of knowing the length >> of the meter will use that definition, or of things which use that
    definition. Which will be more and more as obsolete references get used >> less and less.

    Heck, even the metric-system-resistant Americans use the metric system >> for length, without most knowing it! You see, at some point in the past, >> the inch was redefined to be 2.54 cm (exactly) instead of whatever it
    was, grains of barley or something more modern, previously. But the
    "new" definition was chosen to be so close to the previous one that it >> didn't matter. A bolt created with the old definition of 24 threads/inch >> will accept a nut created with the new definition of 24 threads/inch
    without jamming. Etc. etc.

    One of the problems was that the US inch and the British inch
    were different. So the definition of 2.54cm (exacly) was a compromise. IIRC the decision was made for them by a firm (with market dominance) that made gauge blocks, and by industries that adapted those.
    All this happened well before WWII.
    A very good thing, as it turned out, for it meant for example
    that American firms could start mass production
    of Rolls Royce Merlin engines to power their Mustang fighters,
    without re-tooling.

    Thanks for the history. I wonder how, since the US started as a British colony, the inches were different. No need to answer, I'll google it.
    You'll also find that the USA is now, finally, at long last,
    going to abolish the US Survey foot, which equals 12 old US inches. <https://www.nist.gov/pml/us-surveyfoot>
    Another small step away from the middle ages.
    Same with the new definition of meter, 1/299792458 the distance light
    travels in one second. That magic 299792458 came from the best measures >> of the speed of light using the old system so nobody but the best labs >> can tell the difference between the new and old definitions.

    The new definition is several orders of magnitude more accurate
    and reproducible than the previous one,
    so a comparison is rather meaningless,

    I think the previous definition was a certain number of wavelengths of Krypton-86, so I'd think that it was quite accurate. The definition
    before, some rod in Paris, would certainly be less accurate.
    Certainly, quite accurate, but present day frequency standards,
    hence secondary meter standards, reach accuracies in the 10^-11 range.
    (so about 0.01 nanometer, or a fifth of the Bohr radius)
    There is no way that a standard based on an optical line can match that. (being limited to a fraction of a fringe, so a few nanometer at best)

    Most people just have no idea at all
    about the precision revolution that has taken place.
    For example, at ASML, they make EUV lithography machines
    that can produce chips with a few nanometer grid spacing.
    Succesive patterns must laid down with sub-nanometer accuracy.
    Your latest iPhone depends on it.

    Answer also to innocent kiddies: are the clocks of
    GPS satellites set to 9 192 631 770, according to
    holy (wannabe?) standard, or to ~9 192 631 774,
    violating it?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Sep 15 03:49:37 2023
    On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 12:29:26 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Solidly based on experience,
    with literally hundreds of atomic clocks all over the world
    independently keeping the same time. (as verified by BIPM)

    A lie, as expected from fanatic scum.
    Anyone can check GPS, it's not that
    easy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 15 13:03:42 2023
    Le 15/09/2023 à 12:49, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 12:29:26 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Solidly based on experience,
    with literally hundreds of atomic clocks all over the world
    independently keeping the same time. (as verified by BIPM)

    A lie, as expected from fanatic scum.
    Anyone can check GPS, it's not that
    easy.


    yep, it's not that easy. Engineers managed to make it work using
    General Relativity.

    a demented polish guy named Maciej failed to grasp it. So what?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Python on Fri Sep 15 04:13:37 2023
    On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 13:03:47 UTC+2, Python wrote:
    Le 15/09/2023 à 12:49, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 12:29:26 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Solidly based on experience,
    with literally hundreds of atomic clocks all over the world
    independently keeping the same time. (as verified by BIPM)

    A lie, as expected from fanatic scum.
    Anyone can check GPS, it's not that
    easy.

    yep, it's not that easy. Engineers managed to make it work using
    General Relativity.

    Of course not, they're reasonable people.
    Actually, even the hardest relativistic
    fanatics are not stupid enough to really
    apply GR, they only pretend and all the
    alleged triumphs of The Shit are really
    based on good, old Euclid's math.

    So is GPS, of course, and GPS time (i.e.
    what GPS clocks indicate) is the same for
    satellites and ground bases.
    https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Mikko on Fri Sep 15 12:29:22 2023
    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-14 10:41:35 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-13 13:05:57 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

    The problem here is that you need a theory of space-time in order to >>>> determine what effect, if any, moving the clock has. The fact that the >>>> clock moves slowly counts for nothing before you have a theory that says >>>> that moving it slowly has no significant effect. So your theory has to >>>> precede the experiment, and contains within it the thing you're trying >>>> to prove.

    This does not answer the question of why
    this isn't a one way speed of light measurement.

    It does.

    Nothing is assumed, it is just an experiment.

    Without assuming that the clock when the second set of light pulses is
    emitted is sybcronized to the same clock when the first set of light
    pulses was emitted.

    You misunderstood the set-up.

    No, I did not. The description was perfectly clear.

    The clocks are NOT synchronised. (except with themselves)

    As I said, to itself at anther time.

    Yes, of course. If it were not it wouldn't be a clock.
    But FYI, that is not what 'synchronised' means.
    You are moving goalposts.

    The only assumption that is made is that the clocks
    run at a constant rate.

    That is another way to say what I said.
    The point is, this is an assumption, so "Nothing is assumed" is false.

    Solidly based on experience,
    with literally hundreds of atomic clocks all over the world
    independently keeping the same time. (as verified by BIPM)
    All of your everyday life depends on it, nowadays.

    (or more generally, that the laws of physics do not change with time)

    That is not the same thing. Anyway, finding out the laws is much more difficult if they do change with time. Fortunately the assumption has
    never been refuted.

    (that results in 0.3 m/nanosecond)

    which is the combination of effects from the difference in light path
    length and the change of emitter's clock synchronization.

    Again: There is no clock synchronisation.

    There is: you get a different result if you desysnchronize the clock
    (e.g., stop it and then start again) when you move it.

    Sure.
    If you don't do a measurement then you don't do a measurement.
    Duh.
    You forgot to add: if you break the ruler while at it,
    and glue the pieces together in some random way
    you don't have a measurement either.
    And don't forget: a measurement is a measurement if only if
    it can be traced back to a primary standard.
    A clock that is stopped and restarted doesn't realise the SI second.

    And one may verify experimentally that the result does not depend
    on the way in which the clock is moved. (if non-relativistically)

    Which means that the direction dependency in light speed is opposite
    to the direction dependency of the change in clock syncronization.

    Indeed. Since the one-way speed of light has been measured
    one can verify the equallity of the speed of light
    when it is going in different directions.

    Only under the assumtion discussed above. There is no separate
    verification of that assumption. Without the assumtion there
    is no one way measurement.

    A forteriori, if you sabotage all clocks by randomly stopping and
    restarting them in unpredictable ways you have no science left at all.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Sep 15 14:49:58 2023
    On 2023-09-15 10:29:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-14 10:41:35 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    The only assumption that is made is that the clocks
    run at a constant rate.

    That is another way to say what I said.
    The point is, this is an assumption, so "Nothing is assumed" is false.

    Solidly based on experience,
    with literally hundreds of atomic clocks all over the world
    independently keeping the same time. (as verified by BIPM)
    All of your everyday life depends on it, nowadays.

    Those clocks are all attached to Earth's crust so they all move the same
    way in circles. They are compared with electromagnetic waves. From
    observations we can infer that effects from differences in motion direction
    are opposite to effects from anisotropy of light speed. Observed differences can be attributed to different distances from Eath's axis and centre.

    Again: There is no clock synchronisation.

    There is: you get a different result if you desysnchronize the clock
    (e.g., stop it and then start again) when you move it.

    Sure.
    If you don't do a measurement then you don't do a measurement.

    I didn't say that the measurement is not done. Changing the conditions
    is a common way to check that what is measured is what is inteded.

    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paparios@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 15 07:03:55 2023
    El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 6:10:32 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
    On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 10:56:17 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/14/2023 3:54 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/14/2023 1:12 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 02:09:17 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

    One should use the one most convenient to himself.

    And that is what is done in physics and in real life.

    In real life -sure, so, as anyone can check (GPS, TAI)
    the selection of refarences in the real world is different
    than the religious precepts of your bunch of idiots.

    Still not even wrong.

    Nobody is going to use your insane concept of meter,
    samely as they don't use your even more insane concept
    of second. Sorry, trash.

    Sorry but anything that depends on the precision of knowing the length
    of the meter will use that definition, or of things which use that
    definition. Which will be more and more as obsolete references get used
    less and less.

    Heck, even the metric-system-resistant Americans use the metric system
    for length, without most knowing it! You see, at some point in the past,
    the inch was redefined to be 2.54 cm (exactly) instead of whatever it >> was, grains of barley or something more modern, previously. But the >> "new" definition was chosen to be so close to the previous one that it
    didn't matter. A bolt created with the old definition of 24 threads/inch
    will accept a nut created with the new definition of 24 threads/inch >> without jamming. Etc. etc.

    One of the problems was that the US inch and the British inch
    were different. So the definition of 2.54cm (exacly) was a compromise. IIRC the decision was made for them by a firm (with market dominance) that made gauge blocks, and by industries that adapted those.
    All this happened well before WWII.
    A very good thing, as it turned out, for it meant for example
    that American firms could start mass production
    of Rolls Royce Merlin engines to power their Mustang fighters,
    without re-tooling.

    Thanks for the history. I wonder how, since the US started as a British colony, the inches were different. No need to answer, I'll google it.
    You'll also find that the USA is now, finally, at long last,
    going to abolish the US Survey foot, which equals 12 old US inches. <https://www.nist.gov/pml/us-surveyfoot>
    Another small step away from the middle ages.
    Same with the new definition of meter, 1/299792458 the distance light >> travels in one second. That magic 299792458 came from the best measures
    of the speed of light using the old system so nobody but the best labs
    can tell the difference between the new and old definitions.

    The new definition is several orders of magnitude more accurate
    and reproducible than the previous one,
    so a comparison is rather meaningless,

    I think the previous definition was a certain number of wavelengths of Krypton-86, so I'd think that it was quite accurate. The definition before, some rod in Paris, would certainly be less accurate.
    Certainly, quite accurate, but present day frequency standards,
    hence secondary meter standards, reach accuracies in the 10^-11 range.
    (so about 0.01 nanometer, or a fifth of the Bohr radius)
    There is no way that a standard based on an optical line can match that. (being limited to a fraction of a fringe, so a few nanometer at best)

    Most people just have no idea at all
    about the precision revolution that has taken place.
    For example, at ASML, they make EUV lithography machines
    that can produce chips with a few nanometer grid spacing.
    Succesive patterns must laid down with sub-nanometer accuracy.
    Your latest iPhone depends on it.
    Answer also to innocent kiddies: are the clocks of
    GPS satellites set to 9 192 631 770, according to
    holy (wannabe?) standard, or to ~9 192 631 774,
    violating it?

    Neither one. GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 15 16:15:01 2023
    Le 15/09/2023 à 13:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 13:03:47 UTC+2, Python wrote:
    Le 15/09/2023 à 12:49, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 12:29:26 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Solidly based on experience,
    with literally hundreds of atomic clocks all over the world
    independently keeping the same time. (as verified by BIPM)

    A lie, as expected from fanatic scum.
    Anyone can check GPS, it's not that
    easy.

    yep, it's not that easy. Engineers managed to make it work using
    General Relativity.

    Of course

    then lies

    not, they're reasonable people.
    Actually, even the hardest relativistic
    fanatics are not stupid enough to really
    apply GR, they only pretend and all the
    alleged triumphs of The Shit are really
    based on good, old Euclid's math.

    So is GPS, of course, and GPS time (i.e.
    what GPS clocks indicate) is the same for
    satellites and ground bases.
    https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/

    If you call anything a clock, everything is a clock.

    You can call you aunt an uncle too if you wish.

    This won't bring balls to your aunt.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Mikko on Fri Sep 15 15:29:44 2023
    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-15 10:29:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-14 10:41:35 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    The only assumption that is made is that the clocks
    run at a constant rate.

    That is another way to say what I said.
    The point is, this is an assumption, so "Nothing is assumed" is false.

    Solidly based on experience,
    with literally hundreds of atomic clocks all over the world
    independently keeping the same time. (as verified by BIPM)
    All of your everyday life depends on it, nowadays.

    Those clocks are all attached to Earth's crust so they all move the same
    way in circles. They are compared with electromagnetic waves. From observations we can infer that effects from differences in motion direction are opposite to effects from anisotropy of light speed. Observed differences can be attributed to different distances from Eath's axis and centre.

    All routinely taken into account by the BIPM.
    And you are wrong about the details.
    The SI second is defined on the geoid,
    so only potential differences above it have an observable effect.
    Rotational velocities cancel out.

    Again: There is no clock synchronisation.

    There is: you get a different result if you desysnchronize the clock
    (e.g., stop it and then start again) when you move it.

    Sure.
    If you don't do a measurement then you don't do a measurement.

    I didn't say that the measurement is not done. Changing the conditions
    is a common way to check that what is measured is what is inteded.

    Yes, you did. If you stop the clock temporarily and randomly
    you destroy the traceability of its readings to the SI second,
    hence you have not done a measurement.

    And yes, you are trivially right.
    If you destroy the possibility of measuring anything at all
    you cannot measure anything in particular,

    Jan

    --
    "And don't forget: a measurement is a measurement if only if
    it can be traced back to a primary standard.
    A clock that is stopped and restarted doesn't realise the SI second."
    (Text you shouldn't have snipped, JJL)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Sep 15 17:54:51 2023
    On 2023-09-15 13:29:44 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-15 10:29:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Those clocks are all attached to Earth's crust so they all move the same
    way in circles. They are compared with electromagnetic waves. From
    observations we can infer that effects from differences in motion direction >> are opposite to effects from anisotropy of light speed. Observed
    differences can be attributed to different distances from Eath's axis
    and centre.

    All routinely taken into account by the BIPM.
    And you are wrong about the details.
    The SI second is defined on the geoid,
    so only potential differences above it have an observable effect.

    The definition of SI second does not specify a place. It is the same everywhere. TAI second is kept equal to SI second on geoid as accurately
    as possible.

    Rotational velocities cancel out.

    Nothing cancels Earth's rotation.

    I didn't say that the measurement is not done. Changing the conditions
    is a common way to check that what is measured is what is inteded.

    Yes, you did. If you stop the clock temporarily and randomly
    you destroy the traceability of its readings to the SI second,
    hence you have not done a measurement.

    Same can be said about moving a clock during a measurement.

    And yes, you are trivially right.
    If you destroy the possibility of measuring anything at all
    you cannot measure anything in particular,

    One cannot destroy what does not exist, e.g., the measurement
    of one way speed of light.

    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Python on Fri Sep 15 08:19:21 2023
    On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 16:15:05 UTC+2, Python wrote:
    Le 15/09/2023 à 13:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 13:03:47 UTC+2, Python wrote:
    Le 15/09/2023 à 12:49, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 12:29:26 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Solidly based on experience,
    with literally hundreds of atomic clocks all over the world
    independently keeping the same time. (as verified by BIPM)

    A lie, as expected from fanatic scum.
    Anyone can check GPS, it's not that
    easy.

    yep, it's not that easy. Engineers managed to make it work using
    General Relativity.

    Of course
    then lies
    not, they're reasonable people.
    Actually, even the hardest relativistic
    fanatics are not stupid enough to really
    apply GR, they only pretend and all the
    alleged triumphs of The Shit are really
    based on good, old Euclid's math.

    So is GPS, of course, and GPS time (i.e.
    what GPS clocks indicate) is the same for
    satellites and ground bases. https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/
    If you call anything a clock, everything is a clock.

    Nope, your idiot guru and his fellows from
    Odeon cafe also thought this way, but it
    doesn't work in the long run.
    And thus, of course, GPS time (i.e.
    what GPS clocks indicate) is the same for
    satellites and ground bases.
    https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/what-is-gps-time/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Mikko on Fri Sep 15 20:39:11 2023
    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-15 13:29:44 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-15 10:29:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Those clocks are all attached to Earth's crust so they all move the same >> way in circles. They are compared with electromagnetic waves. From
    observations we can infer that effects from differences in motion direction
    are opposite to effects from anisotropy of light speed. Observed
    differences can be attributed to different distances from Eath's axis
    and centre.

    All routinely taken into account by the BIPM.
    And you are wrong about the details.
    The SI second is defined on the geoid,
    so only potential differences above it have an observable effect.

    The definition of SI second does not specify a place. It is the same everywhere.

    Wrong.
    Fifty years ago metrologists realised that clocks had become accurate
    enough to detect that relative clock rates depended on altitude
    above the geoid. [1]
    In consequence the definition of the second was modified by adding
    'on the rotating geoid'. (and the second became slightly longer)

    TAI second is kept equal to SI second on geoid as accurately as possible.

    There is no difference between the SI second
    and the TAI second. They are both -the- second.
    The only difference is one of definition versus practical realisation.

    Rotational velocities cancel out.

    Nothing cancels Earth's rotation.

    Wrong again, as already mentioned above.
    The mistake you are making is a subtle and common one.
    In Einstein 1905, Einstein (correctly!) deduced
    that -on a perfectly spherical and rotating Earth-
    a watch on the equator must run slow with respect to one at the poles,
    by Lorentz transformation/transverse Doppler shift.
    (depending on how you look at it)

    In Einstein 1915, Einstein (again correctly!) deduced
    that a watch lifted high above the equator (of a non-rotating Earth!)
    would run fast, by gravitational blueshift.
    One easily sees that for an ideal fluid Earth
    the two effects perfectly compensate for each other.
    The fluid Earth flows in such a way that its shape, the geoid,
    becomes an ellipsoid of revolution.
    (to a very good approximation, as already derived by Newton)

    On the rotating geoid the two effects perfectly compensate each other.
    Hence the definition of the second. [2]

    I didn't say that the measurement is not done. Changing the conditions
    is a common way to check that what is measured is what is inteded.

    Yes, you did. If you stop the clock temporarily and randomly
    you destroy the traceability of its readings to the SI second,
    hence you have not done a measurement.

    Same can be said about moving a clock during a measurement.

    That is entirely correct, but more complicated than necessary
    for explaining the principle.
    What matters for the one way speed of light measurement
    is only the net change of distance.
    Nothing new of course, Ole Roemer already understood that.
    (and he made the necessary sums correctly)
    As did Huygens and Newton, who both backed Roemer all the way.

    And yes, you are trivially right.
    If you destroy the possibility of measuring anything at all
    you cannot measure anything in particular,

    One cannot destroy what does not exist, e.g., the measurement
    of one way speed of light.

    OK, why didn't you say so at once?
    If you just want to be fundamentalist about it we can stop here,

    Jan



    [1] Note the subtlety of 'relative'.
    Each clock runs at its own rate, of one second/second,
    -in its own proper frame-.
    However, if you compare a 'high' clock with a 'low' clock
    you will find that the high clock runs faster.
    (according to both of them)

    [2] AFAIK the subtle clock effects depending on the geoid
    not being a pefect ellipsoid are beyond detectability, as yet.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Sep 15 12:03:32 2023
    On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 20:39:19 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Mikko <mikko....@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-15 13:29:44 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Mikko <mikko....@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-15 10:29:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Those clocks are all attached to Earth's crust so they all move the same >> way in circles. They are compared with electromagnetic waves. From
    observations we can infer that effects from differences in motion direction
    are opposite to effects from anisotropy of light speed. Observed
    differences can be attributed to different distances from Eath's axis
    and centre.

    All routinely taken into account by the BIPM.
    And you are wrong about the details.
    The SI second is defined on the geoid,
    so only potential differences above it have an observable effect.

    The definition of SI second does not specify a place. It is the same everywhere.
    Wrong.
    Fifty years ago metrologists realised that clocks had become accurate
    enough to detect that relative clock rates depended on altitude
    above the geoid. [1]
    In consequence the definition of the second was modified by adding
    'on the rotating geoid'. (and the second became slightly longer)
    TAI second is kept equal to SI second on geoid as accurately as possible.
    There is no difference between the SI second
    and the TAI second. They are both -the- second.

    A lie, of course, as expected from relativistic trash.


    The only difference is one of definition versus practical realisation.

    Oh, yes. No difference except the difference. The
    difference between theoretical communism
    and the practical one was similiarly insignificant.


    On the rotating geoid the two effects perfectly compensate each other.
    Hence the definition of the second. [2]

    Ideological idiocy ignored by all the timekeeping
    systems of the real world


    [1] Note the subtlety of 'relative'.
    Each clock runs at its own rate, of one second/second,
    -in its own proper frame-.

    In the delusions of a relativistic clown. Not in the real
    GPS, not in the real UTC, not in the real TAI.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 16 11:52:53 2023
    On 2023-09-15 18:39:11 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-15 13:29:44 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-15 10:29:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Those clocks are all attached to Earth's crust so they all move the same >>>> way in circles. They are compared with electromagnetic waves. From
    observations we can infer that effects from differences in motion direction
    are opposite to effects from anisotropy of light speed. Observed
    differences can be attributed to different distances from Eath's axis
    and centre.

    All routinely taken into account by the BIPM.
    And you are wrong about the details.
    The SI second is defined on the geoid,
    so only potential differences above it have an observable effect.

    The definition of SI second does not specify a place. It is the same
    everywhere.

    Wrong.

    The official definition of second is shown at

    https://www.bipm.org/en/si-base-units/second

    As can be easily seen, the difinition does not mention geoid nor any
    other place.

    TAI second is kept equal to SI second on geoid as accurately as possible.

    There is no difference between the SI second
    and the TAI second. They are both -the- second.

    The SI seond is a unit of duration. The TAI second is a clandar period.

    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Mikko on Sat Sep 16 02:46:08 2023
    On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 10:52:57 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
    On 2023-09-15 18:39:11 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Mikko <mikko....@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-15 13:29:44 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Mikko <mikko....@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-15 10:29:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Those clocks are all attached to Earth's crust so they all move the same >>>> way in circles. They are compared with electromagnetic waves. From
    observations we can infer that effects from differences in motion direction
    are opposite to effects from anisotropy of light speed. Observed
    differences can be attributed to different distances from Eath's axis >>>> and centre.

    All routinely taken into account by the BIPM.
    And you are wrong about the details.
    The SI second is defined on the geoid,
    so only potential differences above it have an observable effect.

    The definition of SI second does not specify a place. It is the same
    everywhere.

    Wrong.
    The official definition of second is shown at

    https://www.bipm.org/en/si-base-units/second

    Great. And now, poor fanatic, take your "official
    definition" and put it straight into your dumb ass,
    where it belongs. No timekeeping system
    is treating this official idiocy seriously and none
    ever will.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Mikko on Wed Sep 20 20:57:17 2023
    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-15 18:39:11 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-15 13:29:44 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-15 10:29:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Those clocks are all attached to Earth's crust so they all move the same >>>> way in circles. They are compared with electromagnetic waves. From
    observations we can infer that effects from differences in motion
    direction are opposite to effects from anisotropy of light speed.
    Observed differences can be attributed to different distances from
    Eath's axis and centre.

    All routinely taken into account by the BIPM.
    And you are wrong about the details.
    The SI second is defined on the geoid,
    so only potential differences above it have an observable effect.

    The definition of SI second does not specify a place. It is the same
    everywhere.

    Wrong.

    The official definition of second is shown at

    https://www.bipm.org/en/si-base-units/second

    As can be easily seen, the difinition does not mention geoid nor any
    other place.

    Sure, if you quote mine for a piece of text to suit your prejudices.
    This definition is adequate only for the proper time of a single clock.
    As the BIPM says:
    "The definition of the second should be understood as the definition of
    the unit of proper time: it applies in a small spatial domain which
    shares the motion of the caesium atom used to realize the definition."

    Of course such a local proper time definition
    has only a limited applicability.
    You almost always want to measure time in the outside world.
    (where is my space probe? How fast is that pulsar ticking, etc.)

    TAI second is kept equal to SI second on geoid as accurately as
    possible.

    There is no difference between the SI second
    and the TAI second. They are both -the- second.

    The SI seond is a unit of duration. The TAI second is a clandar period.

    Complete enonsense. If you look beyond your first quote-mine you may
    find, also at BIPM, <https://support.apple.com/nl-nl/HT211683>
    This appendix about the 'mise en practique'
    explains how the SI second is to be realised in real life.

    The practical SI/TAI second is obtained by averaging the readings
    of about 500 atomic clocks world-wide, to obtain TAI.
    The SI second, when realised as the TAI second, is an order of magnitude
    more accurate than the second from a single clock cluster.

    And yes, this averaging of clocks worldwide can only be done correctly
    by taking general relativistic corrections into account,
    so by correcting for altitude.
    And yes, the common altitude used for this has been taken as the geoid.
    [1]

    Jan

    [1] And even this geoid as 'mean sea level' is not accurate enough
    at today's accuracies.
    It has been replaced by a conventional value of the Newtonian potential.
    And even that will probably abolished in the future.
    The SI second, which is nowadays tied to the geoid, may be replaced
    by a 'free' second, on a clock 'infinitely' far away.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Sep 20 14:27:08 2023
    On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 20:57:20 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Of course such a local proper time definition
    has only a limited applicability.

    Sure, limited applicability. May be applied for liturgical
    purposes of a church of idiots. And that's about it.

    You almost always want to measure time in the outside world.
    (where is my space probe? How fast is that pulsar ticking, etc.)

    Too bad your idiot guru didn't know that.

    The SI seond is a unit of duration. The TAI second is a clandar period.
    Complete enonsense. If you look beyond your first quote-mine you may
    find, also at BIPM, <https://support.apple.com/nl-nl/HT211683>
    This appendix about the 'mise en practique'
    explains how the SI second is to be realised in real life.

    For sure, explaining why real applications [apparently]
    differ from the theory is usual thing in brainwashing ideologies.



    The practical SI/TAI second is obtained by averaging the readings
    of about 500 atomic clocks world-wide, to obtain TAI.
    The SI second, when realised as the TAI second, is an order of magnitude
    more accurate than the second from a single clock cluster.

    And yes, this averaging of clocks worldwide can only be done correctly
    by taking general relativistic corrections into account,

    No, it can only be done by pissing at the "local proper time"
    concept.. Common sense was warning your idiot guru.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Sep 20 22:55:25 2023
    On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 1:57:20 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The practical SI/TAI second is obtained by averaging the readings
    of about 500 atomic clocks world-wide, to obtain TAI.
    The SI second, when realised as the TAI second, is an order of magnitude more accurate than the second from a single clock cluster.

    And yes, this averaging of clocks worldwide can only be done correctly
    by taking general relativistic corrections into account,
    so by correcting for altitude.
    And yes, the common altitude used for this has been taken as the geoid.

    None of this does ANYTHING to falsify Mikko's statement that "the definition [of a second] does not mention geoid nor any other place."

    The (1) official definition of a second and (2) its practical TAI realization for timekeeping purposes are two different things.

    You got momentarily confused and made a false statement when you
    wrote "There is no difference between the SI second and the TAI second." Everybody is entitled to having the occasional brain fart. Unfortunately,
    you appear to get extremely resentful when others point out your mistakes.

    Although you are obviously very knowledgeable about many physics
    topics, your occasional tendency to go into "rant mode" is a highly undesirable one.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Wed Sep 20 23:08:28 2023
    On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 07:55:28 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 1:57:20 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The practical SI/TAI second is obtained by averaging the readings
    of about 500 atomic clocks world-wide, to obtain TAI.
    The SI second, when realised as the TAI second, is an order of magnitude more accurate than the second from a single clock cluster.

    And yes, this averaging of clocks worldwide can only be done correctly
    by taking general relativistic corrections into account,
    so by correcting for altitude.
    And yes, the common altitude used for this has been taken as the geoid.
    None of this does ANYTHING to falsify Mikko's statement that "the definition [of a second] does not mention geoid nor any other place."

    It doesn't. JJ, just like all the fanatic idiots of all
    domains is doing wild contortions to fit his moronic
    faith into the reality it doesn't want to fit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 21 11:04:29 2023
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 1:57:20?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The practical SI/TAI second is obtained by averaging the readings
    of about 500 atomic clocks world-wide, to obtain TAI.
    The SI second, when realised as the TAI second, is an order of magnitude more accurate than the second from a single clock cluster.

    And yes, this averaging of clocks worldwide can only be done correctly
    by taking general relativistic corrections into account,
    so by correcting for altitude.
    And yes, the common altitude used for this has been taken as the geoid.

    None of this does ANYTHING to falsify Mikko's statement that "the definition [of a second] does not mention geoid nor any other place."

    He is quite right, for the kindergarten edition.

    The (1) official definition of a second and (2) its practical TAI realization for timekeeping purposes are two different things.

    Not at all. You cannot measure time correctly
    if you don't understand that the second according to NIST, Boulder
    is shorter than the second as seen at the BIPM, Paris.
    (as seen by both of them, when they compare)

    It surprises me that you do not see this.
    After all, it is no different from clocks in GPS sats going fast,
    (wrt clocks on Earth) which you did get correctly in Wikipedia.
    And yes, Boulder and BPIM do use those GPS/Glonass/etc. sat clocks
    at their different rates to synchronise all of it.
    It is all just a matter of competence and know-how.
    Simplistic harping on definitions for the kiddies
    won't get the job done. [1]

    You got momentarily confused and made a false statement when you
    wrote "There is no difference between the SI second and the TAI second."

    You still don't get it?
    The TAI second -is- the best realisation
    of the SI definition of the second. (if correctly understood)
    There are no two kinds of seconds.

    Everybody is entitled to having the occasional brain fart. Unfortunately,
    you appear to get extremely resentful when others point out your mistakes.

    Poor you, you got stung sometime in the past?
    IIRC you deserved it, a tit for tat,

    Jan

    [1] When you ask yourself what it all means, really, you will see
    that it is no longer a definition of the second, practically speaking.
    The SI definition defines the absolute frequency standard,
    valid locally, at a point, for inertial observers.
    The one second interval need not come into it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Sep 21 16:18:27 2023
    On September 12, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    We do the following neo-Roemer One Way Speed of Light experiment.
    We have two experimenters, A and B,
    both at rest in the same inertial frame.

    Both have a state of the art atomic clock, of stability 10^-15
    with a 10 GHz oscilator and counter phase-locked to it,
    for a 0.1 nansecond read-out.

    B in addition has a triggered laser flasher,
    that emits 1 picosecond light pulses with exactly 1 second intervals.
    (as determined by the counter locked to B's clock)

    A detects the light pulses from B, and notes that these arrive
    at a fixed spacing from the pulses that his clock produces.
    Always the same advance or retard.

    Now B (slowly) moves his clock and flasher 1 meter closer to A.
    A, still tracking the incoming pulses from B,
    notices that they have advanced wrt his own pulses by 3.3 nanoseconds.
    A phones B, and says,
    Hey, I notice that your pulses are now arriving 3.3 nanseconds early.
    You must have moved your clock/flasher 1 meter closer to me.
    B says, yes indeed, good that you could measure it.
    A says: so I conclude that the one way speed of light from you to me
    must be 0.3 meter/nanosecond.
    Now for the no-OWSL fundies:
    please explain why this neo-Roemer experiment is not a OWSL measurement.

    Note that the distance A-B has not been measured,
    and that the clocks at A and B have not been synchronised.

    If the clocks aren't synchronized, how do they know they reside
    in the same inertial frame?
    You: "They're 1 meter apart, it's EASY to see that!"

    Unsatisfactory. In principle, this thought experiment could scale
    up to a light year. Then, how would they determine relative motion,
    without sync'd clocks? That is, no telescopes or anything, just a
    string of pulses, as described.

    And, what is a no-OWLS fundie?

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to RichD on Fri Sep 22 11:07:20 2023
    On 22-Sept-23 9:18 am, RichD wrote:

    Unsatisfactory. In principle, this thought experiment could scale
    up to a light year. Then, how would they determine relative motion,
    without sync'd clocks? That is, no telescopes or anything, just a
    string of pulses, as described.

    A scaled up experiment would be a different experiment. The fact that it
    may be difficult to implement does not reflect on the original experiment.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Sep 21 22:36:07 2023
    On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 11:04:33 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 1:57:20?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The practical SI/TAI second is obtained by averaging the readings
    of about 500 atomic clocks world-wide, to obtain TAI.
    The SI second, when realised as the TAI second, is an order of magnitude more accurate than the second from a single clock cluster.

    And yes, this averaging of clocks worldwide can only be done correctly
    by taking general relativistic corrections into account,
    so by correcting for altitude.
    And yes, the common altitude used for this has been taken as the geoid.

    None of this does ANYTHING to falsify Mikko's statement that "the definition
    [of a second] does not mention geoid nor any other place."
    He is quite right, for the kindergarten edition.
    The (1) official definition of a second and (2) its practical TAI realization
    for timekeeping purposes are two different things.
    Not at all. You cannot measure time correctly
    if you don't understand that the second according to NIST, Boulder
    is shorter than the second as seen at the BIPM, Paris.
    (as seen by both of them, when they compare)

    Our master has said we have to love our neighbour.
    And we have! For kindergarten edition.
    More enlightened ones know what to do with those
    fucken heretics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Sep 22 00:58:21 2023
    On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:04:33 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    None of this does ANYTHING to falsify Mikko's statement that "the definition
    [of a second] does not mention geoid nor any other place."
    He is quite right, for the kindergarten edition.

    The SI second is -not- a kindergarten definition of a second.
    Unless you consider the members of CGPM to be simpletons,
    which I doubt.

    You got momentarily confused and made a false statement when you
    wrote "There is no difference between the SI second and the TAI second."
    You still don't get it?
    The TAI second -is- the best realisation
    of the SI definition of the second. (if correctly understood)
    There are no two kinds of seconds.

    I am quite baffled by your responses. On the one hand, you
    are perfectly aware that the TAI second is a practical
    -realization- of the SI second. Yet on the other hand, you
    continue to insist that there are no two kinds of seconds,
    compounding what I had previously considered merely an
    inadvertent slip of the sort that everybody makes, into a
    stubborn defense of an indefensible position.

    The definition of the SI second has universal applicability.
    It is as valid on the surface of a neutron star as it is on
    a satellite in low Earth orbit. On the other hand, the TAI
    second, as a practical realization of the SI second, has utility
    only in the general vicinity of the Earth. If, in the far future,
    mankind avoids self-destruction and makes it way to the
    stars, the TAI second will have absolutely no utility to our
    descendants on Aldebaran V.

    That certainly strikes me as a significant difference
    between the SI second and the TAI second.

    Everybody is entitled to having the occasional brain fart. Unfortunately, you appear to get extremely resentful when others point out your mistakes.
    Poor you, you got stung sometime in the past?
    IIRC you deserved it, a tit for tat,

    Despite your obvious intelligence and accomplishments, you
    display a lack of emotional maturity with your playground
    insults.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri Sep 22 02:10:59 2023
    On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 09:58:24 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:04:33 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    None of this does ANYTHING to falsify Mikko's statement that "the definition
    [of a second] does not mention geoid nor any other place."
    He is quite right, for the kindergarten edition.
    The SI second is -not- a kindergarten definition of a second.

    It's too stupid for kindergarten, it can
    be valid only in physics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Sep 22 13:10:51 2023
    On 2023-09-20 18:57:17 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Complete enonsense. If you look beyond your first quote-mine you may
    find, also at BIPM, <https://support.apple.com/nl-nl/HT211683>

    That is Apple's web page, not BIMP's.

    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri Sep 22 13:16:55 2023
    On 2023-09-21 05:55:25 +0000, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said:

    The (1) official definition of a second and (2) its practical TAI realizationfor timekeeping purposes are two different things.

    The problem is that the word "second" has many different meanings.
    It's etymological meaning is 'a small part of a small part', which
    a base unit is not. The SI second is a unit of time but the same
    word is also used for a calendar period and also for a unit of
    angle. It would be clearer if the name of the base unit were changed.

    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Mikko on Fri Sep 22 03:27:52 2023
    On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 12:17:00 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
    On 2023-09-21 05:55:25 +0000, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said:

    The (1) official definition of a second and (2) its practical TAI realizationfor timekeeping purposes are two different things.

    The problem is that the word "second" has many different meanings.
    It's etymological meaning is 'a small part of a small part', which
    a base unit is not. The SI second is a unit of time


    Not in the world we inhabit. Here it is TAI second.
    Surprisingly, some of your bunch of idiots are even
    smart enough to notice that it is different than SI.
    And it really is.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri Sep 22 09:30:16 2023
    On 9/22/23 2:58 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    The definition of the SI second has universal applicability. It is
    as valid on the surface of a neutron star as it is on a satellite in
    low Earth orbit.

    Yes.

    On the other hand, the TAI second, as a practical realization of the
    SI second, has utility only in the general vicinity of the Earth.

    It's narrower than that -- TAI is only valid at rest on earth's geoid.
    Anywhere else some correction must be applied. In many cases, such as laboratories on the surface of the earth near sea level, the correction
    is so small that it does not significantly affect any local experiment.

    Note that it is straightforward to obtain a signal with a frequency
    traceable to the TAI second, for instance from a GPS time receiver
    (other approaches are possible). To obtain a signal traceable directly
    to the SI second (i.e. not TAI, GPST, etc.) requires you to set up your
    own array of atomic clocks and deal with the intrinsic clock
    irregularities. This is quite complex and depends on your accuracy
    requirements (atomic clocks are not ideal clocks, they are real clocks).

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Mikko on Fri Sep 22 16:36:59 2023
    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-20 18:57:17 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Complete enonsense. If you look beyond your first quote-mine you may
    find, also at BIPM, <https://support.apple.com/nl-nl/HT211683>

    That is Apple's web page, not BIMP's.

    Sorry, my excuses, copy/paste error, should have noticed.
    Should be <https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41489667/SI-App2-second.pdf/3c76fec8-04d9-f484-5c3c-a2e280a0f248>

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Mikko on Fri Sep 22 11:24:49 2023
    On 9/22/2023 6:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2023-09-21 05:55:25 +0000, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said:

    The (1) official definition of a second and (2) its practical TAI
    realizationfor timekeeping purposes are two different things.

    The problem is that the word "second" has many different meanings.
    It's etymological meaning is 'a small part of a small part', which
    a base unit is not. The SI second is a unit of time but the same
    word is also used for a calendar period and also for a unit of
    angle. It would be clearer if the name of the base unit were changed.

    At one time, they divided it again, coming up with the "third" (third
    division, small part of a small part of a small part), at least in
    Poland. 60 thirds=1 second. This was almost never used, as they didn't
    have electronics to run at such speeds, nor US frequency electric power
    which by dumb coincidence has a frequency of one third per cycle. These
    days the second is divided into decimal portions, not thirds.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Fri Sep 22 08:49:42 2023
    On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:30:27 AM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 9/22/23 2:58 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    The definition of the SI second has universal applicability. It is
    as valid on the surface of a neutron star as it is on a satellite in
    low Earth orbit.
    Yes.
    On the other hand, the TAI second, as a practical realization of the
    SI second, has utility only in the general vicinity of the Earth.
    It's narrower than that -- TAI is only valid at rest on earth's geoid. Anywhere else some correction must be applied. In many cases, such as laboratories on the surface of the earth near sea level, the correction
    is so small that it does not significantly affect any local experiment.

    Note that it is straightforward to obtain a signal with a frequency traceable to the TAI second, for instance from a GPS time receiver
    (other approaches are possible). To obtain a signal traceable directly
    to the SI second (i.e. not TAI, GPST, etc.) requires you to set up your
    own array of atomic clocks and deal with the intrinsic clock
    irregularities. This is quite complex and depends on your accuracy requirements (atomic clocks are not ideal clocks, they are real clocks).

    I guess we are getting into puns here.
    I was writing of the TAI timescale in terms of a common reference
    to which, within well-understood limitations, events may be assigned timestamps. Dissemination of TAI time would, as you note, typically
    be via GPS. The fact that TAI is strictly valid only for objects at rest
    on earth's geoid does not detract from its utility for the purpose that
    I described. Tracing events directly to SI seconds would be far more
    complex.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Fri Sep 22 09:14:03 2023
    On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 16:30:27 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 9/22/23 2:58 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    The definition of the SI second has universal applicability. It is
    as valid on the surface of a neutron star as it is on a satellite in
    low Earth orbit.
    Yes.
    On the other hand, the TAI second, as a practical realization of the
    SI second, has utility only in the general vicinity of the Earth.
    It's narrower than that -- TAI is only valid at rest on earth's geoid. Anywhere else some correction must be applied.

    That's THE BEST WAY!!! We're FORCED!!!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Mikko on Fri Sep 22 21:00:09 2023
    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-21 05:55:25 +0000, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said:

    The (1) official definition of a second and (2) its practical TAI realizationfor timekeeping purposes are two different things.

    The problem is that the word "second" has many different meanings.
    It's etymological meaning is 'a small part of a small part', which
    a base unit is not.

    By etymology it is dimensionless, a sixtiesth of a sixtieth.
    (of something)
    In full it is a secundus minutes.
    Or more fully a secundus minutes partes.
    The tertius minutes has fallen out of use.

    The SI second is a unit of time but the same
    word is also used for a calendar period and also for a unit of
    angle. It would be clearer if the name of the base unit were changed.

    Not really. The unit of angle is almost always refered to
    as the arcsecond, or the second of arc,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 22 21:00:04 2023
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:04:33?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    None of this does ANYTHING to falsify Mikko's statement that "the definition [of a second] does not mention geoid nor any other place."
    He is quite right, for the kindergarten edition.

    The SI second is -not- a kindergarten definition of a second.
    Unless you consider the members of CGPM to be simpletons,
    which I doubt.

    The members of the CGPM understand the limitations and uses of it.
    (actually, there is no such thing as a 'CMPG member' except for states)

    You got momentarily confused and made a false statement when you wrote "There is no difference between the SI second and the TAI second."
    You still don't get it?
    The TAI second -is- the best realisation
    of the SI definition of the second. (if correctly understood)
    There are no two kinds of seconds.

    I am quite baffled by your responses. On the one hand, you
    are perfectly aware that the TAI second is a practical
    -realization- of the SI second. Yet on the other hand, you
    continue to insist that there are no two kinds of seconds,
    compounding what I had previously considered merely an
    inadvertent slip of the sort that everybody makes, into a
    stubborn defense of an indefensible position.

    The problem is entirely with your faulty understanding of the situation.
    All timekeeping that all of humannity does is based on the SI second,
    as realised in the TAI. (with appropriata corrections applied)
    TAI, and of course UTC with it, is the only time there is.

    The definition of the SI second has universal applicability.
    It is as valid on the surface of a neutron star as it is on
    a satellite in low Earth orbit.

    Certainly, but only as a local proper time.
    Again, you should understand the definition of the SI second
    as a definition that sets the frquency scale.

    On the other hand, the TAI
    second, as a practical realization of the SI second, has utility
    only in the general vicinity of the Earth.

    More nonsense. Please try to understand the situation
    before making pronouncements about it.
    People can, and do navigate space probes
    through the rings of Saturn with it.
    And yes, corrections apply.
    Large corrections even, TCB is half a second per year faster than TAI.

    If, in the far future,
    mankind avoids self-destruction and makes it way to the
    stars, the TAI second will have absolutely no utility to our
    descendants on Aldebaran V.
    That certainly strikes me as a significant difference
    between the SI second and the TAI second.

    You are moving goalposts.
    If humanity ever gets that far there will still be a need
    for a common timekeeping. (if both survive)
    Galactic corrections will need to be applied.
    No one has any idea what a galaxy-wide human civilisation will do.

    If you want to make a practical point consider a permanent Mars base.
    Do you really believe that such a base and Earth
    won't have a common timekeeping? (hint: it already exists)

    The kindergarten definition of the second (as a second)
    applies locally, and only locally. [1]
    Now, when you try to apply it in the real world,
    so to measuring any time at all outside the closed walls
    of your laboratory, you inevitably notice that seconds,
    as realised at Boulder, are shorter than seconds as realised in Paris.
    (as seen by each other)
    The inevitable conclusion must be that the kindergarten definition of
    the second must be inadequate for practical timekeeping.
    And yes, the definition of the second has been amended
    by adding: 'on the rotating geoid'.
    Again, all this is common knowledge.

    Everybody is entitled to having the occasional brain fart. Unfortunately, you appear to get extremely resentful when others point out your mistakes.
    Poor you, you got stung sometime in the past?
    IIRC you deserved it, a tit for tat,

    Despite your obvious intelligence and accomplishments, you
    display a lack of emotional maturity with your playground
    insults.

    You really surprise me.
    Perhaps you do not follow this forum too closely?
    If so, you might have noticed that I have been more than patient
    in this forum, even with the hopeless nutters,
    and so far I only ignore two of them permanently.
    I have not exchanged insults with them on a regular tit for tat basis,

    Jan

    [1] And as explained elsewhere,
    this definition is better seen
    as the definition of the frequency standard,
    for which it is perfectly adequate.
    It is not adequate for general time keeping purposes.

    That's why it is probably going to be abolished,
    probably in the not to far future.
    Not just by an Earth-free second,
    but even by a Solar system-free second.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Sep 22 12:39:03 2023
    On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 21:00:12 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    If you want to make a practical point consider a permanent Mars base.
    Do you really believe that such a base and Earth
    won't have a common timekeeping? (hint: it already exists)

    The kindergarten definition of the second (as a second)
    applies locally, and only locally. [1]

    It's not kindergarten, it belongs to the church of
    yours. Sure, nobody serious will treat it seriously.
    Even you're not THAT stupid, though most of
    your fellow clowns are.
    Common sense was warning your idiot guru.

    Now, when you try to apply it in the real world,

    Well, you won't. Your idiocies will limit
    themself to your gedankenwelt.

    so to measuring any time at all outside the closed walls
    of your laboratory, you inevitably notice that seconds,
    as realised at Boulder, are shorter than seconds as realised in Paris.
    (as seen by each other)

    Wasn't the whole revolutional concept of your
    idiot guru about it?

    The inevitable conclusion must be that the kindergarten definition of
    the second must be inadequate for practical timekeeping.

    It's not kindergarten, it belongs to the church of
    your idiot guru. Common sense was warning
    him.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Fri Sep 22 21:54:08 2023
    Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    On 9/22/23 2:58 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    The definition of the SI second has universal applicability. It is
    as valid on the surface of a neutron star as it is on a satellite in
    low Earth orbit.

    Yes.

    On the other hand, the TAI second, as a practical realization of the
    SI second, has utility only in the general vicinity of the Earth.

    It's narrower than that -- TAI is only valid at rest on earth's geoid. Anywhere else some correction must be applied. In many cases, such as laboratories on the surface of the earth near sea level, the correction
    is so small that it does not significantly affect any local experiment.

    On the -rotating- geoid, in fact.
    (not always mentioned explicitly in definitions)
    Lorentz factors as a result of being closer or farther away from the
    Earth's rotation axis (so latitude) are already included.
    That's why Hafele and Keating had to do their clock demonstration twice,
    going both ways round.

    Note that it is straightforward to obtain a signal with a frequency
    traceable to the TAI second, for instance from a GPS time receiver
    (other approaches are possible). To obtain a signal traceable directly
    to the SI second (i.e. not TAI, GPST, etc.) requires you to set up your
    own array of atomic clocks and deal with the intrinsic clock
    irregularities. This is quite complex and depends on your accuracy requirements (atomic clocks are not ideal clocks, they are real clocks).

    Applying the appropriate correction is much simpler,
    if you don't need the utmost in precision.
    (unless you don't know where you are)

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Sep 22 12:40:20 2023
    On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 2:00:12 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:04:33?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    None of this does ANYTHING to falsify Mikko's statement that "the definition [of a second] does not mention geoid nor any other place."
    He is quite right, for the kindergarten edition.

    The SI second is -not- a kindergarten definition of a second.
    Unless you consider the members of CGPM to be simpletons,
    which I doubt.
    The members of the CGPM understand the limitations and uses of it. (actually, there is no such thing as a 'CMPG member' except for states)
    You got momentarily confused and made a false statement when you wrote "There is no difference between the SI second and the TAI second."
    You still don't get it?
    The TAI second -is- the best realisation
    of the SI definition of the second. (if correctly understood)
    There are no two kinds of seconds.

    I am quite baffled by your responses. On the one hand, you
    are perfectly aware that the TAI second is a practical
    -realization- of the SI second. Yet on the other hand, you
    continue to insist that there are no two kinds of seconds,
    compounding what I had previously considered merely an
    inadvertent slip of the sort that everybody makes, into a
    stubborn defense of an indefensible position.
    The problem is entirely with your faulty understanding of the situation.
    All timekeeping that all of humannity does is based on the SI second,
    as realised in the TAI. (with appropriata corrections applied)
    TAI, and of course UTC with it, is the only time there is.
    The definition of the SI second has universal applicability.
    It is as valid on the surface of a neutron star as it is on
    a satellite in low Earth orbit.
    Certainly, but only as a local proper time.
    Again, you should understand the definition of the SI second
    as a definition that sets the frquency scale.
    On the other hand, the TAI
    second, as a practical realization of the SI second, has utility
    only in the general vicinity of the Earth.
    More nonsense. Please try to understand the situation
    before making pronouncements about it.
    People can, and do navigate space probes
    through the rings of Saturn with it.
    And yes, corrections apply.
    Large corrections even, TCB is half a second per year faster than TAI.
    If, in the far future,

    By "general vicinity of the Earth" I was by no means excluding
    its utility in navigation of space probes through the solar system.
    As I wrote to Tom, ""I was writing of the TAI timescale in terms of
    a common reference to which, within well-understood limitations,
    events may be assigned timestamps. . . .The fact that TAI is strictly
    valid only for objects at rest on earth's geoid does not detract from
    its utility for the purpose that I described."

    From where I stand (I really do hope that I am wrong in this) you
    appear to be doing everything you can to misconstrue my words.

    mankind avoids self-destruction and makes it way to the
    stars, the TAI second will have absolutely no utility to our
    descendants on Aldebaran V.
    That certainly strikes me as a significant difference
    between the SI second and the TAI second.
    You are moving goalposts.

    It appeared to be a good way of making clear the fact that
    there -is- a difference between the SI second and the practical
    realization of it as manifest in the TAI.

    If humanity ever gets that far there will still be a need
    for a common timekeeping. (if both survive)
    Galactic corrections will need to be applied.
    No one has any idea what a galaxy-wide human civilisation will do.

    If you want to make a practical point consider a permanent Mars base.
    Do you really believe that such a base and Earth
    won't have a common timekeeping? (hint: it already exists)

    Of course. Earth and Mars are close enough that exchange of
    time signals is not only possible, but regularly performed between
    monitors on Earth and the various Mars probes.

    The kindergarten definition of the second (as a second)
    applies locally, and only locally. [1]
    Now, when you try to apply it in the real world,
    so to measuring any time at all outside the closed walls
    of your laboratory, you inevitably notice that seconds,
    as realised at Boulder, are shorter than seconds as realised in Paris.
    (as seen by each other)
    The inevitable conclusion must be that the kindergarten definition of
    the second must be inadequate for practical timekeeping.
    And yes, the definition of the second has been amended
    by adding: 'on the rotating geoid'.

    Not the SI definition of the second.
    In the document that you linked to, section 2 is devoted to the
    definition of the second, and section 3 is devoted to its practical realization: https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41489667/SI-App2-second.pdf/3c76fec8-04d9-f484-5c3c-a2e280a0f248

    The document explicitly states, "The definition of the second
    should be understood as the definition of the unit of proper time"

    Again, all this is common knowledge.
    Everybody is entitled to having the occasional brain fart. Unfortunately,
    you appear to get extremely resentful when others point out your mistakes.
    Poor you, you got stung sometime in the past?
    IIRC you deserved it, a tit for tat,

    Despite your obvious intelligence and accomplishments, you
    display a lack of emotional maturity with your playground
    insults.
    You really surprise me.
    Perhaps you do not follow this forum too closely?
    If so, you might have noticed that I have been more than patient
    in this forum, even with the hopeless nutters,
    and so far I only ignore two of them permanently.
    I have not exchanged insults with them on a regular tit for tat basis,

    Nor do I.


    Jan

    [1] And as explained elsewhere,
    this definition is better seen
    as the definition of the frequency standard,
    for which it is perfectly adequate.
    It is not adequate for general time keeping purposes.

    That's why it is probably going to be abolished,
    probably in the not to far future.
    Not just by an Earth-free second,
    but even by a Solar system-free second.

    The current SI second will certainly be superseded by
    a definition based on a more stable oscillator. But its
    replacement will also make no reference to the geoid.
    Are you not aware that the Earth's mass is constantly
    changing, so that the gravitational potential measured
    on the geoid is constantly changing? I do not happen to
    know offhand whether the increase in mass due to
    meteoroids, micrometeoroids, and cosmic dust particles
    is enough to offset the loss of mass due to the escape
    of gases into space, but I imagine that future generations
    of atomic clock will be sensitive enough to detect
    changes in gravitational potential over sub-geologic time
    scales.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Sep 22 21:54:08 2023
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/22/2023 6:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2023-09-21 05:55:25 +0000, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said:

    The (1) official definition of a second and (2) its practical TAI
    realizationfor timekeeping purposes are two different things.

    The problem is that the word "second" has many different meanings.
    It's etymological meaning is 'a small part of a small part', which
    a base unit is not. The SI second is a unit of time but the same
    word is also used for a calendar period and also for a unit of
    angle. It would be clearer if the name of the base unit were changed.

    At one time, they divided it again, coming up with the "third" (third division, small part of a small part of a small part), at least in
    Poland. 60 thirds=1 second. This was almost never used, as they didn't
    have electronics to run at such speeds, nor US frequency electric power
    which by dumb coincidence has a frequency of one third per cycle. These
    days the second is divided into decimal portions, not thirds.

    As a matter of historical fact the US grid is at 60 Hz
    because George Westinghouse decided it that way.
    His reason was that at 60 Hz the flicker of the arc lights
    they had in those days is slightly less noticeable than at 50 Hz.
    Europeans didn't care,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri Sep 22 12:58:55 2023
    On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 2:40:22 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    The current SI second will certainly be superseded by
    a definition based on a more stable oscillator. But its
    replacement will also make no reference to the geoid.
    Are you not aware that the Earth's mass is constantly
    changing, so that the gravitational potential measured
    on the geoid is constantly changing? I do not happen to
    know offhand whether the increase in mass due to
    meteoroids, micrometeoroids, and cosmic dust particles
    is enough to offset the loss of mass due to the escape
    of gases into space, but I imagine that future generations
    of atomic clock will be sensitive enough to detect
    changes in gravitational potential over sub-geologic time
    scales.

    There is also the practical difficulty of basing -any-
    measurement on the properties of the Earth, as best
    illustrated by the original definition of the meter. In the
    case of the TAI second, current clocks are accurate enough
    that centimeter-scale inaccuracies in assessing the precise
    height of the geoid will have measurable effects. I predict
    that some future iteration of TAI will need to abandon
    referencing the geoid in favor of some more precisely
    defined requirement.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 22 22:31:47 2023
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    [repetitions]

    Not the SI definition of the second.
    In the document that you linked to, section 2 is devoted to the
    definition of the second, and section 3 is devoted to its practical realization: https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41489667/SI-App2-second.pdf/3c76fec8-04d9
    -f484-5c3c-a2e280a0f248

    The document explicitly states, "The definition of the second
    should be understood as the definition of the unit of proper time"

    Yes, --proper--.

    Jan

    [1] And as explained elsewhere,
    this definition is better seen
    as the definition of the frequency standard,
    for which it is perfectly adequate.
    It is not adequate for general time keeping purposes.

    That's why it is probably going to be abolished,
    probably in the not to far future.
    Not just by an Earth-free second,
    but even by a Solar system-free second.

    The current SI second will certainly be superseded by
    a definition based on a more stable oscillator. But its
    replacement will also make no reference to the geoid.

    You are behind the times. (again)
    The geoid (as the physical mean sea level)
    has already been replaced by a conventional reference value
    of the Newtonian potential of 62 636 853.4 m^2 s^-2.

    But even if the geoid is written out of a future definition
    it will still be there implicitly,
    because any practical time scale must be obtained by applying
    corrections to TAI.
    (for the simple reason that it is the only practical timescale there is)

    Are you not aware that the Earth's mass is constantly
    changing, so that the gravitational potential measured
    on the geoid is constantly changing?

    Nonsense, and also irrelevant, see above.
    The mass of the Earth is not changing in any significant way.

    I do not happen to
    know offhand whether the increase in mass due to
    meteoroids, micrometeoroids, and cosmic dust particles
    is enough to offset the loss of mass due to the escape
    of gases into space, but I imagine that future generations
    of atomic clock will be sensitive enough to detect
    changes in gravitational potential over sub-geologic time
    scales.

    Idle imaginings. But yes,
    atomic clocks will be able in the very near future
    to separate out geoid change from geometric rise,
    in sea level rise for example. [1]

    Jan

    [1] See that Wikipedia article that doesn't exist yet.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri Sep 22 13:26:22 2023
    On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 21:40:22 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    It appeared to be a good way of making clear the fact that
    there -is- a difference between the SI second and the practical
    realization of it as manifest in the TAI.

    Pro, poor brainwashed halfbrain, TAI is not any
    manifest of your local idiocy. It's NOT local. It's
    matching the old definition of second, not the new one.

    If you want to make a practical point consider a permanent Mars base.
    Do you really believe that such a base and Earth
    won't have a common timekeeping? (hint: it already exists)
    Of course. Earth and Mars are close enough that exchange of
    time signals is not only possible, but regularly performed between
    monitors on Earth and the various Mars probes.

    What JJ is saying right now is - "the local time of
    our idiot guru is stupid, completely unpractical
    and good at best for kindergarten children".

    Well, no, it's not good enough for kindergarten
    children, it may only be good enough for relativistic
    clowns.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Sep 22 14:31:39 2023
    On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:31:51 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    [repetitions]
    Not the SI definition of the second.
    In the document that you linked to, section 2 is devoted to the
    definition of the second, and section 3 is devoted to its practical realization: https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41489667/SI-App2-second.pdf/3c76fec8-04d9
    -f484-5c3c-a2e280a0f248

    The document explicitly states, "The definition of the second
    should be understood as the definition of the unit of proper time"
    Yes, --proper--.
    Jan

    [1] And as explained elsewhere,
    this definition is better seen
    as the definition of the frequency standard,
    for which it is perfectly adequate.
    It is not adequate for general time keeping purposes.

    That's why it is probably going to be abolished,
    probably in the not to far future.
    Not just by an Earth-free second,
    but even by a Solar system-free second.

    The current SI second will certainly be superseded by
    a definition based on a more stable oscillator. But its
    replacement will also make no reference to the geoid.
    You are behind the times. (again)
    The geoid (as the physical mean sea level)
    has already been replaced by a conventional reference value
    of the Newtonian potential of 62 636 853.4 m^2 s^-2.

    Thank you. I was not aware of the conventional reference
    value of the geoid.

    But the distinction between the definition of the second
    and its practical realization is a -very- important one, to which
    your referenced document devotes four pages.

    The SI definition of the second is not a "kindergarten"
    definition, but one which expresses profound insights
    about the nature of time arrived at over a century ago.

    I do not see the point in denigrating the SI definition
    simply because you wish to cover up the fact that you
    committed a trivial, completely understandable brain fart
    several posts back in this thread.

    But even if the geoid is written out of a future definition
    it will still be there implicitly,
    because any practical time scale must be obtained by applying
    corrections to TAI.
    (for the simple reason that it is the only practical timescale there is)
    Are you not aware that the Earth's mass is constantly
    changing, so that the gravitational potential measured
    on the geoid is constantly changing?
    Nonsense, and also irrelevant, see above.
    The mass of the Earth is not changing in any significant way.
    I do not happen to
    know offhand whether the increase in mass due to
    meteoroids, micrometeoroids, and cosmic dust particles
    is enough to offset the loss of mass due to the escape
    of gases into space, but I imagine that future generations
    of atomic clock will be sensitive enough to detect
    changes in gravitational potential over sub-geologic time
    scales.
    Idle imaginings. But yes,
    atomic clocks will be able in the very near future
    to separate out geoid change from geometric rise,
    in sea level rise for example. [1]

    Then the imaginings aren't idle, are they now.

    Jan

    [1] See that Wikipedia article that doesn't exist yet.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri Sep 22 14:51:52 2023
    On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 23:31:42 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    But the distinction between the definition of the second
    and its practical realization is a -very- important one, to which
    your referenced document devotes four pages.

    The SI definition of the second is not a "kindergarten"
    definition

    Worse - it belongs to a church of brainwashed
    worshippers of an insane crazie.

    And TAI is not its practical realization. It's
    practical pissing at it. TAI is NOT local.
    The "local time" concept of your idiot
    guru was practically unusable, face it.
    Common sense was warning him.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 23 00:44:28 2023
    On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:31:51 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The geoid (as the physical mean sea level)
    has already been replaced by a conventional reference value
    of the Newtonian potential of 62 636 853.4 m^2 s^-2.

    I have a question for you.

    Assuming spherical symmetry, the gravitational potential
    may be calculated by
    V = -GM / r

    Now of course, the Earth does not have a perfectly spherical
    mass distribution, but let us assume that we have a highly
    refined model of the Earth, taking into account the latest
    data on glacial melt due to global warming, mass shifts due
    to plate tectonics and soon and so forth.

    G is known to about 0.01%
    M is known to about the same level of precision.

    However, the product GM is known to about 0.0001%

    Given these uncertainties, can you describe to me a method
    of accurately locating an optical clock relative to the
    "official" definition of the reference geoid to within, say,
    a few centimeters? This being a difference detectable by
    the latest optical lattice clocks.

    I believe that we have here yet another example of the
    difference between a defined value (in this case, the
    conventional reference value of the geoid) versus its
    practical realization.

    To use your denigratory language, is the value of
    62,636,853.4 m^2/s^2 to be considered a "kindergarten"
    definition of the geoid?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 23 13:02:57 2023
    On 9/22/2023 3:54 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    As a matter of historical fact the US grid is at 60 Hz
    because George Westinghouse decided it that way.
    His reason was that at 60 Hz the flicker of the arc lights
    they had in those days is slightly less noticeable than at 50 Hz.
    Europeans didn't care,

    Hit send too soon. Probably just that Europeans and Americans never
    consulted with each other. People have different sensitivities to
    flicker. I knew many who couldn't stand the ballast fluorescent light
    flicker (120 Hz).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 23 12:59:40 2023
    On 9/22/2023 3:54 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/22/2023 6:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2023-09-21 05:55:25 +0000, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said:

    The (1) official definition of a second and (2) its practical TAI
    realizationfor timekeeping purposes are two different things.

    The problem is that the word "second" has many different meanings.
    It's etymological meaning is 'a small part of a small part', which
    a base unit is not. The SI second is a unit of time but the same
    word is also used for a calendar period and also for a unit of
    angle. It would be clearer if the name of the base unit were changed.

    At one time, they divided it again, coming up with the "third" (third
    division, small part of a small part of a small part), at least in
    Poland. 60 thirds=1 second. This was almost never used, as they didn't
    have electronics to run at such speeds, nor US frequency electric power
    which by dumb coincidence has a frequency of one third per cycle. These
    days the second is divided into decimal portions, not thirds.

    According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute, Roger Bacon in 1267
    wrote of the time between full moons in terms of hours, minutes,
    seconds, thirds and fourths (1/3600 second), WAY before any ability to
    measure time that accurately.

    Oh, Maciej, make yourself useful for once. Same article states the word "tercja" is still used in Poland for the time period "third". If so,
    how/when?

    As a matter of historical fact the US grid is at 60 Hz
    because George Westinghouse decided it that way.
    His reason was that at 60 Hz the flicker of the arc lights
    they had in those days is slightly less noticeable than at 50 Hz.

    The apocryphal story I heard, Tesla was asked what frequency an AC grid
    should be designed to, he thought about it for a minute and came up with
    60 Hz. This may be as apocryphal as the bill for $10,000 for fixing a
    generator (from Charles Steinmetz himself?) by hitting it with a hammer.
    When itemized, the charges were $1 for hitting generator with hammer,
    $9999 for knowing where to hit the generator. (all this from memory, I'm
    sure the numbers are all wrong)

    In the early days, there were many frequencies in use. I once worked in
    an old mill complex which still has a 40 Hz water powered generator
    (retired in place) with a manufacturing date of about 1897. One of the
    first hydroelectric plants in the US (designed by Steinmetz himself) in
    in Mechanicville NY and still generates power at 40 Hz but is converted
    to 60 Hz onsite and connected to the grid. Buffalo NY, one of the first
    cities to get electricity was at 25 Hz, the power company had a larger
    load at 25 Hz than 60 Hz until the 1940s, they stopped taking new 25 Hz customers around then, but the last 5 25 Hz customers used it until 2006
    when a storm destroyed the line (from Canada) and it wasn't worth fixing
    since 25 Hz service was scheduled to be disconnected at the end of 2007.
    The Northeast Corridor railroad line between NYC and Washington DC
    *still* uses 25 Hz. (in the early days, large motors were more efficient
    at lower frequencies)

    Pro

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Sep 23 10:31:33 2023
    On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:59:48 UTC+2, Volney wrote:


    Oh, Maciej, make yourself useful for once. Same article states the word "tercja" is still used in Poland for the time period "third". If so, how/when?

    Hockey match has 3 round, first tercja, second tercja,
    third tercja. Don't think I've met the word elsewhere.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 23 22:48:16 2023
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:31:51?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The geoid (as the physical mean sea level)
    has already been replaced by a conventional reference value
    of the Newtonian potential of 62 636 853.4 m^2 s^-2.

    I have a question for you.

    Assuming spherical symmetry, the gravitational potential
    may be calculated by
    V = -GM / r

    Now of course, the Earth does not have a perfectly spherical
    mass distribution, but let us assume that we have a highly
    refined model of the Earth, taking into account the latest
    data on glacial melt due to global warming, mass shifts due
    to plate tectonics and soon and so forth.

    G is known to about 0.01%
    M is known to about the same level of precision.

    However, the product GM is known to about 0.0001%

    The geoid cannot be predicted to adequate precision anyway
    because the mass distribution inside is too unknown.
    You must realise that gravity is an 'infinite range' force.
    (in physics jargon that means that it goes as r^-2)
    Therefore the whole Earth contributes to the local potential.
    More technically: you must solve the Laplace equation
    for the given mass distribution.

    Given these uncertainties, can you describe to me a method
    of accurately locating an optical clock relative to the
    "official" definition of the reference geoid to within, say,
    a few centimeters? This being a difference detectable by
    the latest optical lattice clocks.

    The altitude, hence potential difference, of Sevres
    wrt to 'mean sea level' is known from long time series
    of tidal gauges, and geodesic levelling, so that could be used.

    But you are approaching the whole issue completely from the wrong end.
    (and thereby creating problems that don't exist)
    The Newtonian potential can be measured very accurately
    outside the Earth, by tracking satellite orbits.
    And satellite altimetry (by radar or laser) tells you very accurately
    where the water level is, even over the oceans.
    And propagating the potential back to the surface of the Earth
    is simple, because it only involves the source-free Laplace equation.

    I believe that we have here yet another example of the
    difference between a defined value (in this case, the
    conventional reference value of the geoid) versus its
    practical realization.

    To use your denigratory language, is the value of
    62,636,853.4 m^2/s^2 to be considered a "kindergarten"
    definition of the geoid?

    That use of 'geoid' in discussions about time
    has indeed become 'in a manner of speech'.
    Those in the know will know what it means precisely, in practice.
    Moreover, the geoid itself has become a popularised term.
    Those in the know talk in terms of Earth Gravitational Models.
    The current one is EGM2008. GPS uses EGM1996. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Gravitational_Model>

    Given all these complications it is obvious that precision timekeeping
    must be liberated from all those technical 'geoid' details,
    and it is obvious howto, but lots of work in practice to do it,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Sep 23 22:48:17 2023
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/22/2023 3:54 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/22/2023 6:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2023-09-21 05:55:25 +0000, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said:

    The (1) official definition of a second and (2) its practical TAI
    realizationfor timekeeping purposes are two different things.

    The problem is that the word "second" has many different meanings.
    It's etymological meaning is 'a small part of a small part', which
    a base unit is not. The SI second is a unit of time but the same
    word is also used for a calendar period and also for a unit of
    angle. It would be clearer if the name of the base unit were changed.

    At one time, they divided it again, coming up with the "third" (third
    division, small part of a small part of a small part), at least in
    Poland. 60 thirds=1 second. This was almost never used, as they didn't
    have electronics to run at such speeds, nor US frequency electric power
    which by dumb coincidence has a frequency of one third per cycle. These
    days the second is divided into decimal portions, not thirds.

    According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute, Roger Bacon in 1267
    wrote of the time between full moons in terms of hours, minutes,
    seconds, thirds and fourths (1/3600 second), WAY before any ability to measure time that accurately.

    Oh, Maciej, make yourself useful for once. Same article states the word "tercja" is still used in Poland for the time period "third". If so, how/when?

    As a matter of historical fact the US grid is at 60 Hz
    because George Westinghouse decided it that way.
    His reason was that at 60 Hz the flicker of the arc lights
    they had in those days is slightly less noticeable than at 50 Hz.

    The apocryphal story I heard, Tesla was asked what frequency an AC grid should be designed to, he thought about it for a minute and came up with
    60 Hz. This may be as apocryphal as the bill for $10,000 for fixing a generator (from Charles Steinmetz himself?) by hitting it with a hammer.
    When itemized, the charges were $1 for hitting generator with hammer,
    $9999 for knowing where to hit the generator. (all this from memory, I'm
    sure the numbers are all wrong)

    In the early days, there were many frequencies in use. I once worked in
    an old mill complex which still has a 40 Hz water powered generator
    (retired in place) with a manufacturing date of about 1897. One of the
    first hydroelectric plants in the US (designed by Steinmetz himself) in
    in Mechanicville NY and still generates power at 40 Hz but is converted
    to 60 Hz onsite and connected to the grid. Buffalo NY, one of the first cities to get electricity was at 25 Hz, the power company had a larger
    load at 25 Hz than 60 Hz until the 1940s, they stopped taking new 25 Hz customers around then, but the last 5 25 Hz customers used it until 2006
    when a storm destroyed the line (from Canada) and it wasn't worth fixing since 25 Hz service was scheduled to be disconnected at the end of 2007.
    The Northeast Corridor railroad line between NYC and Washington DC
    *still* uses 25 Hz. (in the early days, large motors were more efficient
    at lower frequencies)

    The reason probably wasn't motor eficiency, but skin effect
    in the ferromagnetic! iron rails used for the return current.
    Even more outlandish: 16 2/3 Hertz has been used in Europe
    for the same reason.
    I don't know how they made that.

    In the meantime, railway companies think nowadays
    that power costs next to nothing,
    and that even regenerative braking isn't worth thinking about,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Sep 23 17:52:24 2023
    On 9/23/2023 1:31 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:59:48 UTC+2, Volney wrote:


    Oh, Maciej, make yourself useful for once. Same article states the word
    "tercja" is still used in Poland for the time period "third". If so,
    how/when?

    Hockey match has 3 round, first tercja, second tercja,
    third tercja. Don't think I've met the word elsewhere.

    Google Translate translates it as just "third" as I expected. Hockey
    would be more like using it as one of three periods of play. US English
    uses "half" and "quarter" in games the same way, also rarely
    "third/thirds" for hockey but usually just "periods".

    You don't see any usage corresponding to 1/60 second, or at least a
    small part of a second? I wonder how the mention of Polish using it for
    a fraction of a second got into the Wikipedia article, if Polish doesn't
    use the word for much other than hockey periods.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 23 21:25:05 2023
    On 9/23/2023 4:48 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    The Northeast Corridor railroad line between NYC and Washington DC
    *still* uses 25 Hz. (in the early days, large motors were more efficient
    at lower frequencies)

    The reason probably wasn't motor eficiency, but skin effect
    in the ferromagnetic! iron rails used for the return current.
    Even more outlandish: 16 2/3 Hertz has been used in Europe
    for the same reason.

    I think much of it was eddy currents in motors and transformer cores.
    They hadn't realized they needed to laminate the cores to reduce eddy
    currents which are more at higher frequencies.

    I don't know how they made that.

    Big, slow generator rotors. The transformers must be huge.

    In the meantime, railway companies think nowadays
    that power costs next to nothing,
    and that even regenerative braking isn't worth thinking about,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Sep 23 22:43:20 2023
    On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 11:59:48 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

    According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute, Roger Bacon in 1267
    wrote of the time between full moons in terms of hours, minutes,
    seconds, thirds and fourths (1/3600 second), WAY before any ability to measure time that accurately.

    I don't know about Roger Bacon, but checking Muḥammad ibn
    Aḥmad Bīrūnī, I see beginning on page 147 and continuing on
    subsequent pages, references to "thirds" and "fourths" of a second
    both written in symbols as ''' and (superscript) IV, as well as in words.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=pFIEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA147

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 23 22:43:45 2023
    On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 22:48:20 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The geoid cannot be predicted to adequate precision anyway
    because the mass distribution inside is too unknown.
    You must realise that gravity is an 'infinite range' force.

    Another common sense prejudice refuted by
    your idiot guru - gravity is not a force at all,
    at least according to your moronic religion.
    Yet another confirmation you simply don't know
    your precious physics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Sep 23 22:44:51 2023
    On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 23:52:30 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 9/23/2023 1:31 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 18:59:48 UTC+2, Volney wrote:


    Oh, Maciej, make yourself useful for once. Same article states the word
    "tercja" is still used in Poland for the time period "third". If so,
    how/when?

    Hockey match has 3 round, first tercja, second tercja,
    third tercja. Don't think I've met the word elsewhere.

    Google Translate translates it as just "third" as I expected. Hockey
    would be more like using it as one of three periods of play. US English
    uses "half" and "quarter" in games the same way, also rarely
    "third/thirds" for hockey but usually just "periods".

    You don't see any usage corresponding to 1/60 second, or at least a
    small part of a second?

    No.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Sep 24 10:40:24 2023
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/23/2023 4:48 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    The Northeast Corridor railroad line between NYC and Washington DC
    *still* uses 25 Hz. (in the early days, large motors were more efficient >> at lower frequencies)

    The reason probably wasn't motor eficiency, but skin effect
    in the ferromagnetic! iron rails used for the return current.
    Even more outlandish: 16 2/3 Hertz has been used in Europe
    for the same reason.

    I think much of it was eddy currents in motors and transformer cores.
    They hadn't realized they needed to laminate the cores to reduce eddy currents which are more at higher frequencies.

    Nonsense, I guess. Faraday already knew about eddy currents,
    and Foucault is credited with officially discovering them.
    (hence also 'Foucault currents')
    All well before large generators were being built,
    or railways became electrified.

    And all those pictures of ancient generators show laminated cores.
    You are underestimating those great ancients,
    and that is almost always a mistake.
    But it is technically impossible to laminate the rails. [1]

    I don't know how they made that.

    Big, slow generator rotors. The transformers must be huge.

    Motor/generator converters, I guess.
    And yes, the locomotives must be heavy.
    (good for traction, but bad for rail maintenance)

    Jan

    [1] The other option is of course DC traction motors,
    with the DC being made by mercury arc rectifiers.
    The even more modern option is to go to high voltage,
    25 kV @ 50 Hz, for high speed or very heavy trains.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Sep 24 12:24:12 2023
    On 2023-09-23 20:48:16 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    The SI definition of the second is not a "kindergarten"
    definition, but one which expresses profound insights
    about the nature of time arrived at over a century ago.

    Of course it isn't.
    It is the basic definition in metrology on which everything depends.
    What is 'kindergarten' is the pretense that this is all there is
    to the second.

    The SI second is fully defined in SI. The SI definition is not amended
    or altered by anything outside SI.

    Seconds other than the SI second are defined elsewhere. Definitions
    of those other seconds may depend on the SI second and may specify
    differences from the SI defintion. In addition, their practical
    implementation may use the SI second.

    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 24 05:04:58 2023
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    The SI definition of the second is not a "kindergarten"
    definition, but one which expresses profound insights
    about the nature of time arrived at over a century ago.

    Of course it isn't.
    It is the basic definition in metrology on which everything depends.

    No, it is not.
    Metrology is serious, it's using TAI second.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sun Sep 24 07:22:01 2023
    On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 12:43:22 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 11:59:48 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

    According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute, Roger Bacon in 1267 wrote of the time between full moons in terms of hours, minutes,
    seconds, thirds and fourths (1/3600 second), WAY before any ability to measure time that accurately.
    I don't know about Roger Bacon, but checking Muḥammad ibn
    Aḥmad Bīrūnī, I see beginning on page 147 and continuing on
    subsequent pages, references to "thirds" and "fourths" of a second
    both written in symbols as ''' and (superscript) IV, as well as in words. https://books.google.com/books?id=pFIEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA147

    Roger Bacon refers to thirds and fourths of a second in his Opus Majus
    "Et istud in tabula secunda accidit super b literam in directo xxxiii anni post duos dies de Aprili et xvii horas, et xvi minuta, et xxxiii secunda,
    1 tertia, xxiv quarta, et sic sapientissimi in his considerationibus aestimaverunt, qui multum laboraverunt ad hoc probandum" https://archive.org/details/opusmajusrogerb01bridgoog/page/n407/mode/2up

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sun Sep 24 10:31:25 2023
    On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 9:22:04 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 12:43:22 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 11:59:48 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

    According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute, Roger Bacon in 1267 wrote of the time between full moons in terms of hours, minutes, seconds, thirds and fourths (1/3600 second), WAY before any ability to measure time that accurately.
    I don't know about Roger Bacon, but checking Muḥammad ibn
    Aḥmad Bīrūnī, I see beginning on page 147 and continuing on subsequent pages, references to "thirds" and "fourths" of a second
    both written in symbols as ''' and (superscript) IV, as well as in words. https://books.google.com/books?id=pFIEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA147
    Roger Bacon refers to thirds and fourths of a second in his Opus Majus
    "Et istud in tabula secunda accidit super b literam in directo xxxiii anni post duos dies de Aprili et xvii horas, et xvi minuta, et xxxiii secunda,
    1 tertia, xxiv quarta, et sic sapientissimi in his considerationibus aestimaverunt, qui multum laboraverunt ad hoc probandum" https://archive.org/details/opusmajusrogerb01bridgoog/page/n407/mode/2up
    '
    Correction: Bacon refers to seconds, thirds, and fourths of a -minute-

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Sep 24 13:58:48 2023
    On 9/24/2023 4:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/23/2023 4:48 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    The Northeast Corridor railroad line between NYC and Washington DC
    *still* uses 25 Hz. (in the early days, large motors were more efficient >>>> at lower frequencies)

    The reason probably wasn't motor eficiency, but skin effect
    in the ferromagnetic! iron rails used for the return current.
    Even more outlandish: 16 2/3 Hertz has been used in Europe
    for the same reason.

    I think much of it was eddy currents in motors and transformer cores.
    They hadn't realized they needed to laminate the cores to reduce eddy
    currents which are more at higher frequencies.

    Nonsense, I guess. Faraday already knew about eddy currents,
    and Foucault is credited with officially discovering them.
    (hence also 'Foucault currents')
    All well before large generators were being built,
    or railways became electrified.

    And all those pictures of ancient generators show laminated cores.
    You are underestimating those great ancients,
    and that is almost always a mistake.
    But it is technically impossible to laminate the rails. [1]

    What I remember from long ago (when I was rather fascinated with the
    topic) is that large electric motors and generators of the time were
    more efficient at lower frequencies. (including stationary units, not
    involving rails). I may have jumped to conclusions regarding lamination.
    It may also be true that the steel technology didn't allow laminations
    thin enough. (ones I see are a fraction of a mm thick) Large motor
    efficiency vs. light bulb flicker were two competing reasons in a
    tradeoff when AC frequency was chosen. It was behind the apocryphal
    Tesla picking the grid frequency story.

    I don't know how they made that.

    Big, slow generator rotors. The transformers must be huge.

    Motor/generator converters, I guess.

    Later on, but the originals were probably dedicated to the railroads,
    M-G converters came later when using the grid became a better option
    than dedicated sources. Buffalo's 25 Hz was generated at 25 Hz, or at
    least was for most of its existence (I don't know when the last 25 Hz
    generator was shut down). The Northeast Corridor still has some
    dedicated 25 Hz generation, most is from electronic converters. I
    believe all the M-G units have been decommissioned.

    And yes, the locomotives must be heavy.
    (good for traction, but bad for rail maintenance)

    Jan

    [1] The other option is of course DC traction motors,
    with the DC being made by mercury arc rectifiers.
    The even more modern option is to go to high voltage,
    25 kV @ 50 Hz, for high speed or very heavy trains.

    The Northeast rail corridor is a hodgepodge. From Washington DC to NYC
    it is 12.5 kV at 25 Hz (used to be 11 kV). From NYC to New Haven CT it
    is 12.5 kV @ 60 Hz. From New Haven to Boston (electrified comparatively recently) it is 25/50 kV at 60 Hz. (catenary to rail 25 kV, many 50 kV
    center tapped autotransformers along the way used to keep current out of
    the rails as much as possible). I believe on the locomotive it is
    automatically switched and converted to DC anyway)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sun Sep 24 16:21:34 2023
    On 9/24/2023 8:04 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    The SI definition of the second is not a "kindergarten"
    definition, but one which expresses profound insights
    about the nature of time arrived at over a century ago.

    Of course it isn't.
    It is the basic definition in metrology on which everything depends.

    No, it is not.
    Metrology is serious, it's using TAI second.

    What you call the "TAI second" is the SI second. Same for the "GPS
    second", "UTC second", "LORAN second". They're all the same.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Sep 24 23:26:35 2023
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/24/2023 8:04 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    The SI definition of the second is not a "kindergarten"
    definition, but one which expresses profound insights
    about the nature of time arrived at over a century ago.

    Of course it isn't.
    It is the basic definition in metrology on which everything depends.

    No, it is not.
    Metrology is serious, it's using TAI second.

    What you call the "TAI second" is the SI second. Same for the "GPS
    second", "UTC second", "LORAN second". They're all the same.

    Sure, but the TAI/UTC/GPS second can be realised
    to an order of magnitude better than the SI second
    of any single (cluster of) Cesium clocks can be, just by itself,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Mikko on Sun Sep 24 23:26:34 2023
    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-09-23 20:48:16 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    The SI definition of the second is not a "kindergarten"
    definition, but one which expresses profound insights
    about the nature of time arrived at over a century ago.

    Of course it isn't.
    It is the basic definition in metrology on which everything depends.
    What is 'kindergarten' is the pretense that this is all there is
    to the second.

    The SI second is fully defined in SI. The SI definition is not amended
    or altered by anything outside SI.

    Seconds other than the SI second are defined elsewhere. Definitions
    of those other seconds may depend on the SI second and may specify differences from the SI defintion. In addition, their practical implementation may use the SI second.

    Definitions without implementation are no more than words,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Sep 24 15:55:58 2023
    On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 4:26:38 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/24/2023 8:04 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    The SI definition of the second is not a "kindergarten"
    definition, but one which expresses profound insights
    about the nature of time arrived at over a century ago.

    Of course it isn't.
    It is the basic definition in metrology on which everything depends.

    No, it is not.
    Metrology is serious, it's using TAI second.

    What you call the "TAI second" is the SI second. Same for the "GPS second", "UTC second", "LORAN second". They're all the same.
    Sure, but the TAI/UTC/GPS second can be realised
    to an order of magnitude better than the SI second
    of any single (cluster of) Cesium clocks can be, just by itself,

    What are you talking about? The SI definition of the second, covered
    in section 2 of the mise en pratique published by CIPM, -on purpose-
    does not indicate a recommended method of realization. "The definition
    of the second does not imply any particular experiment for its practical realization."

    Practical methods of realization are covered in section 3 of the
    mise en pratique: https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41489667/SI-App2-second.pdf/3c76fec8-04d9-f484-5c3c-a2e280a0f248

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Sep 24 22:18:25 2023
    On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 22:21:43 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 9/24/2023 8:04 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    The SI definition of the second is not a "kindergarten"
    definition, but one which expresses profound insights
    about the nature of time arrived at over a century ago.

    Of course it isn't.
    It is the basic definition in metrology on which everything depends.

    No, it is not.
    Metrology is serious, it's using TAI second.

    What you call the "TAI second" is the SI second. Same for the "GPS
    second", "UTC second", "LORAN second". They're all the same.

    No more that 9 192 631 774 setting is 9 192 631 770 setting,
    stupid Mike.

    See :
    On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 22:14:43 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
    [NOTE: I did not create this terminology, which contains
    an important PUN on "second". While GPS coordinate time
    talks about "seconds", the word has a DIFFERENT MEANING
    from its usage in "SI second" or "proper time second".

    Even that idiot knows, though, of course, he's often
    lying about it for the sake of your moronic religion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sun Sep 24 22:20:13 2023
    On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 00:56:01 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 4:26:38 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/24/2023 8:04 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    The SI definition of the second is not a "kindergarten"
    definition, but one which expresses profound insights
    about the nature of time arrived at over a century ago.

    Of course it isn't.
    It is the basic definition in metrology on which everything depends.

    No, it is not.
    Metrology is serious, it's using TAI second.

    What you call the "TAI second" is the SI second. Same for the "GPS second", "UTC second", "LORAN second". They're all the same.
    Sure, but the TAI/UTC/GPS second can be realised
    to an order of magnitude better than the SI second
    of any single (cluster of) Cesium clocks can be, just by itself,
    What are you talking about?

    He's talking about burning those fucken heretics
    for the sake of loving the neighbours.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 25 12:10:58 2023
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 4:26:38?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/24/2023 8:04 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    The SI definition of the second is not a "kindergarten"
    definition, but one which expresses profound insights
    about the nature of time arrived at over a century ago.

    Of course it isn't.
    It is the basic definition in metrology on which everything depends.

    No, it is not.
    Metrology is serious, it's using TAI second.

    What you call the "TAI second" is the SI second. Same for the "GPS second", "UTC second", "LORAN second". They're all the same.
    Sure, but the TAI/UTC/GPS second can be realised
    to an order of magnitude better than the SI second
    of any single (cluster of) Cesium clocks can be, just by itself,

    What are you talking about? The SI definition of the second, covered
    in section 2 of the mise en pratique published by CIPM, -on purpose-
    does not indicate a recommended method of realization. "The definition
    of the second does not imply any particular experiment for its practical realization."

    Practical methods of realization are covered in section 3 of the
    mise en pratique: https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41489667/SI-App2-second.pdf/3c76fec8-04d9
    -f484-5c3c-a2e280a0f248

    Sigh. How many repetitions do you need?

    Yes, the formal definition sets the frequency standard for the SI.
    And,
    Yes, it allows for the realisation of the second -of proper time-.
    And,
    No, it doesn't allow for accurate timekeeping,
    And,
    No, it does not allow for a precise realisation of the second,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Mon Sep 25 03:16:41 2023
    On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 12:11:02 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 4:26:38?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/24/2023 8:04 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    The SI definition of the second is not a "kindergarten"
    definition, but one which expresses profound insights
    about the nature of time arrived at over a century ago.

    Of course it isn't.
    It is the basic definition in metrology on which everything depends.

    No, it is not.
    Metrology is serious, it's using TAI second.

    What you call the "TAI second" is the SI second. Same for the "GPS second", "UTC second", "LORAN second". They're all the same.
    Sure, but the TAI/UTC/GPS second can be realised
    to an order of magnitude better than the SI second
    of any single (cluster of) Cesium clocks can be, just by itself,

    What are you talking about? The SI definition of the second, covered
    in section 2 of the mise en pratique published by CIPM, -on purpose-
    does not indicate a recommended method of realization. "The definition
    of the second does not imply any particular experiment for its practical realization."

    Practical methods of realization are covered in section 3 of the
    mise en pratique: https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41489667/SI-App2-second.pdf/3c76fec8-04d9
    -f484-5c3c-a2e280a0f248
    Sigh. How many repetitions do you need?

    Yes, the formal definition sets the frequency standard for the SI.
    And,
    Yes, it allows for the realisation of the second -of proper time-.
    And,
    No, it doesn't allow for accurate timekeeping,
    And,
    No, it does not allow for a precise realisation of the second,

    Summarizing - even devoted believers have no
    choice but to ignore this ideological absurd.
    Happens to ideological absurds.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Mon Sep 25 04:43:51 2023
    On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 13:30:01 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:11:02 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 4:26:38?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/24/2023 8:04 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    The SI definition of the second is not a "kindergarten"
    definition, but one which expresses profound insights
    about the nature of time arrived at over a century ago.

    Of course it isn't.
    It is the basic definition in metrology on which everything depends.

    No, it is not.
    Metrology is serious, it's using TAI second.

    What you call the "TAI second" is the SI second. Same for the "GPS second", "UTC second", "LORAN second". They're all the same.
    Sure, but the TAI/UTC/GPS second can be realised
    to an order of magnitude better than the SI second
    of any single (cluster of) Cesium clocks can be, just by itself,

    What are you talking about? The SI definition of the second, covered
    in section 2 of the mise en pratique published by CIPM, -on purpose- does not indicate a recommended method of realization. "The definition of the second does not imply any particular experiment for its practical realization."

    Practical methods of realization are covered in section 3 of the
    mise en pratique: https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41489667/SI-App2-second.pdf/3c76fec8-04d9
    -f484-5c3c-a2e280a0f248
    Sigh. How many repetitions do you need?

    Yes, the formal definition sets the frequency standard for the SI.
    And,
    Yes, it allows for the realisation of the second -of proper time-.
    And,
    No, it doesn't allow for accurate timekeeping,
    And,
    No, it does not allow for a precise realisation of the second,

    Jan
    How many times to I have to tell -YOU-?
    The definition of the SI second in section 2 specifically does
    not provide any specification for realization of the second.
    So your statement "Sure, but the TAI/UTC/GPS second can
    be realised to an order of magnitude better than the SI second
    of any single (cluster of) Cesium clocks can be, just by itself"
    IS COMPETE NONSENSE.

    Nope.
    The whole problem is that SI is an ideological
    absurd developed to protect The Shit of your
    idiot guru against the reality. For timekeeping
    or measurements it's worthless and unusable -
    and, as timekeeping and measurements are
    important for us, and even for you - we all must
    rely on something - better. We must and we do.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Mon Sep 25 04:29:59 2023
    On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:11:02 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 4:26:38?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/24/2023 8:04 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    The SI definition of the second is not a "kindergarten"
    definition, but one which expresses profound insights
    about the nature of time arrived at over a century ago.

    Of course it isn't.
    It is the basic definition in metrology on which everything depends.

    No, it is not.
    Metrology is serious, it's using TAI second.

    What you call the "TAI second" is the SI second. Same for the "GPS second", "UTC second", "LORAN second". They're all the same.
    Sure, but the TAI/UTC/GPS second can be realised
    to an order of magnitude better than the SI second
    of any single (cluster of) Cesium clocks can be, just by itself,

    What are you talking about? The SI definition of the second, covered
    in section 2 of the mise en pratique published by CIPM, -on purpose-
    does not indicate a recommended method of realization. "The definition
    of the second does not imply any particular experiment for its practical realization."

    Practical methods of realization are covered in section 3 of the
    mise en pratique: https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41489667/SI-App2-second.pdf/3c76fec8-04d9
    -f484-5c3c-a2e280a0f248
    Sigh. How many repetitions do you need?

    Yes, the formal definition sets the frequency standard for the SI.
    And,
    Yes, it allows for the realisation of the second -of proper time-.
    And,
    No, it doesn't allow for accurate timekeeping,
    And,
    No, it does not allow for a precise realisation of the second,

    Jan

    How many times to I have to tell -YOU-?
    The definition of the SI second in section 2 specifically does
    not provide any specification for realization of the second.
    So your statement "Sure, but the TAI/UTC/GPS second can
    be realised to an order of magnitude better than the SI second
    of any single (cluster of) Cesium clocks can be, just by itself"
    IS COMPETE NONSENSE.

    Section 2 does not mention the use of any clocks at all.
    You seem to fantasize that the definition in section 2 implies
    that the SI second is that duration which is measured by a
    single clock. DUH.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 25 15:02:05 2023
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:11:02?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 4:26:38?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/24/2023 8:04 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    The SI definition of the second is not a "kindergarten"
    definition, but one which expresses profound insights
    about the nature of time arrived at over a century ago.

    Of course it isn't.
    It is the basic definition in metrology on which everything
    depends.

    No, it is not.
    Metrology is serious, it's using TAI second.

    What you call the "TAI second" is the SI second. Same for the "GPS second", "UTC second", "LORAN second". They're all the same.
    Sure, but the TAI/UTC/GPS second can be realised
    to an order of magnitude better than the SI second
    of any single (cluster of) Cesium clocks can be, just by itself,

    What are you talking about? The SI definition of the second, covered
    in section 2 of the mise en pratique published by CIPM, -on purpose-
    does not indicate a recommended method of realization. "The definition
    of the second does not imply any particular experiment for its practical realization."

    Practical methods of realization are covered in section 3 of the
    mise en pratique: https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41489667/SI-App2-second.pdf/3c76fec8-
    04d9
    -f484-5c3c-a2e280a0f248
    Sigh. How many repetitions do you need?

    Yes, the formal definition sets the frequency standard for the SI.
    And,
    Yes, it allows for the realisation of the second -of proper time-.
    And,
    No, it doesn't allow for accurate timekeeping,
    And,
    No, it does not allow for a precise realisation of the second,

    Jan

    How many times to I have to tell -YOU-?
    The definition of the SI second in section 2 specifically does
    not provide any specification for realization of the second.

    See under my Yes #1 and Yes #2.
    And, what parts of 'proper time' and 'small spatial domain'
    don't you understand?

    So your statement "Sure, but the TAI/UTC/GPS second can
    be realised to an order of magnitude better than the SI second
    of any single (cluster of) Cesium clocks can be, just by itself"
    IS COMPETE NONSENSE.

    Sure, merely physics,

    Jan

    --
    "The definition of the second should be understood as the definition of
    the unit of proper time: it applies in a small spatial domain which
    shares the motion of the caesium atom used to realize the definition."
    (BIPM)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Mon Sep 25 06:17:01 2023
    On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 15:02:10 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:


    "The definition of the second should be understood as the definition of
    the unit of proper time: it applies in a small spatial domain which
    shares the motion of the caesium atom used to realize the definition."


    While in the meantime in the real world - improper
    clocks will keep measuring improper time.
    Why not?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Mon Sep 25 07:21:45 2023
    On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:02:10 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:11:02?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 4:26:38?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/24/2023 8:04 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    The SI definition of the second is not a "kindergarten"
    definition, but one which expresses profound insights
    about the nature of time arrived at over a century ago.

    Of course it isn't.
    It is the basic definition in metrology on which everything >>> depends.

    No, it is not.
    Metrology is serious, it's using TAI second.

    What you call the "TAI second" is the SI second. Same for the "GPS second", "UTC second", "LORAN second". They're all the same.
    Sure, but the TAI/UTC/GPS second can be realised
    to an order of magnitude better than the SI second
    of any single (cluster of) Cesium clocks can be, just by itself,

    What are you talking about? The SI definition of the second, covered in section 2 of the mise en pratique published by CIPM, -on purpose- does not indicate a recommended method of realization. "The definition of the second does not imply any particular experiment for its practical
    realization."

    Practical methods of realization are covered in section 3 of the
    mise en pratique: https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41489667/SI-App2-second.pdf/3c76fec8-
    04d9
    -f484-5c3c-a2e280a0f248
    Sigh. How many repetitions do you need?

    Yes, the formal definition sets the frequency standard for the SI.
    And,
    Yes, it allows for the realisation of the second -of proper time-.
    And,
    No, it doesn't allow for accurate timekeeping,
    And,
    No, it does not allow for a precise realisation of the second,

    Jan

    How many times to I have to tell -YOU-?
    The definition of the SI second in section 2 specifically does
    not provide any specification for realization of the second.
    See under my Yes #1 and Yes #2.
    And, what parts of 'proper time' and 'small spatial domain'
    don't you understand?

    What part of the fact that the SI definition of the second makes
    no mention of clocks don't you understand?

    "The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking
    the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency ∆νCs, the
    unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the
    caesium 133 atom, to be 9 192 631 770 when expressed in the
    unit Hz, which is equal to s−1 ."

    So your statement "Sure, but the TAI/UTC/GPS second can
    be realised to an order of magnitude better than the SI second
    of any single (cluster of) Cesium clocks can be, just by itself"
    IS COMPETE NONSENSE.
    Sure, merely physics,

    Jan

    --
    "The definition of the second should be understood as the definition of
    the unit of proper time: it applies in a small spatial domain which
    shares the motion of the caesium atom used to realize the definition." (BIPM)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 25 23:29:29 2023
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:02:10?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:11:02?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 4:26:38?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/24/2023 8:04 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    The SI definition of the second is not a "kindergarten"
    definition, but one which expresses profound insights
    about the nature of time arrived at over a century ago.

    Of course it isn't.
    It is the basic definition in metrology on which everything >>> depends.

    No, it is not.
    Metrology is serious, it's using TAI second.

    What you call the "TAI second" is the SI second. Same for the "GPS
    second", "UTC second", "LORAN second". They're all the same.
    Sure, but the TAI/UTC/GPS second can be realised
    to an order of magnitude better than the SI second
    of any single (cluster of) Cesium clocks can be, just by itself,

    What are you talking about? The SI definition of the second, covered in section 2 of the mise en pratique published by CIPM, -on purpose- does not indicate a recommended method of realization. "The definition of the second does not imply any particular experiment
    for its practical realization."

    Practical methods of realization are covered in section 3 of the
    mise en pratique: https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41489667/SI-App2-second.pdf/3c76f
    ec8-
    04d9
    -f484-5c3c-a2e280a0f248
    Sigh. How many repetitions do you need?

    Yes, the formal definition sets the frequency standard for the SI.
    And,
    Yes, it allows for the realisation of the second -of proper time-.
    And,
    No, it doesn't allow for accurate timekeeping,
    And,
    No, it does not allow for a precise realisation of the second,

    Jan

    How many times to I have to tell -YOU-?
    The definition of the SI second in section 2 specifically does
    not provide any specification for realization of the second.
    See under my Yes #1 and Yes #2.
    And, what parts of 'proper time' and 'small spatial domain'
    don't you understand?

    What part of the fact that the SI definition of the second makes
    no mention of clocks don't you understand?

    So no answer from you, not surprised, you really don't understand.

    "The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking
    the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency ∆?Cs, the
    unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the
    caesium 133 atom, to be 9 192 631 770 when expressed in the
    unit Hz, which is equal to s?1 ."

    Sure, what you take for the definition of the second
    is really a derived definition, from the definition of the Hz.
    Physicists will understand that there are no problems
    with defining a proper frequency at a point.
    (or even for a single atom)

    And for your amusement, stability of frequency standards
    has increased to the point that the extent of that
    'small spatial domain' in which the definition of a frequency
    can be interpreted as a definition of the second
    has shrunk to about 0.1 mm, for the latest in optical frequency
    standards.

    BTW, no founding father descended Mount SI
    bearing SI definitions engraved in stone.
    Instead of quote mining circulars for phrases
    that fit your lack of understanding of the physics involved
    you should try to understand why those definitions
    are made in the way that they are made.

    Summary: there is no problem with the SI.
    The only problem is that you don't understand what it is all about.

    Jan


    So your statement "Sure, but the TAI/UTC/GPS second can
    be realised to an order of magnitude better than the SI second
    of any single (cluster of) Cesium clocks can be, just by itself"
    IS COMPETE NONSENSE.
    Sure, merely physics,

    Jan

    --
    "The definition of the second should be understood as the definition of
    the unit of proper time: it applies in a small spatial domain which
    shares the motion of the caesium atom used to realize the definition." (BIPM)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Sep 26 11:28:16 2023
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/24/2023 4:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/23/2023 4:48 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    The Northeast Corridor railroad line between NYC and Washington DC
    *still* uses 25 Hz. (in the early days, large motors were more efficient >>>> at lower frequencies)

    The reason probably wasn't motor eficiency, but skin effect
    in the ferromagnetic! iron rails used for the return current.
    Even more outlandish: 16 2/3 Hertz has been used in Europe
    for the same reason.

    I think much of it was eddy currents in motors and transformer cores.
    They hadn't realized they needed to laminate the cores to reduce eddy
    currents which are more at higher frequencies.

    Nonsense, I guess. Faraday already knew about eddy currents,
    and Foucault is credited with officially discovering them.
    (hence also 'Foucault currents')
    All well before large generators were being built,
    or railways became electrified.

    And all those pictures of ancient generators show laminated cores.
    You are underestimating those great ancients,
    and that is almost always a mistake.
    But it is technically impossible to laminate the rails. [1]

    What I remember from long ago (when I was rather fascinated with the
    topic) is that large electric motors and generators of the time were
    more efficient at lower frequencies. (including stationary units, not involving rails).

    I remember the converse, that at higher frequencies
    transformers and motors can be smaller,
    for the same energy throughput.
    Hence 400 Hz, for aeroplanes, to save weight.

    I may have jumped to conclusions regarding lamination.
    It may also be true that the steel technology didn't allow laminations
    thin enough. (ones I see are a fraction of a mm thick)

    Rolling metals is a huge subject with a long history. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_(metalworking)>
    By late 19th they were no doubt capable of rolling very thin steel
    plates.

    Large motor
    efficiency vs. light bulb flicker were two competing reasons in a
    tradeoff when AC frequency was chosen. It was behind the apocryphal
    Tesla picking the grid frequency story.

    No idea. But 50 versus 60 Hz cannot have made much of a difference.

    I don't know how they made that.

    Big, slow generator rotors. The transformers must be huge.

    Motor/generator converters, I guess.

    Later on, but the originals were probably dedicated to the railroads,
    M-G converters came later when using the grid became a better option
    than dedicated sources. Buffalo's 25 Hz was generated at 25 Hz, or at
    least was for most of its existence (I don't know when the last 25 Hz generator was shut down). The Northeast Corridor still has some
    dedicated 25 Hz generation, most is from electronic converters. I
    believe all the M-G units have been decommissioned.

    Europe was a mess too.
    International trains had to stop at borders to change locomotives.
    (on a stretch that could be fed from both sides)
    Trivia: some international travel time records from the age of steam
    were not broken until the TGVs arrived.

    And yes, the locomotives must be heavy.
    (good for traction, but bad for rail maintenance)

    Jan

    [1] The other option is of course DC traction motors,
    with the DC being made by mercury arc rectifiers.
    The even more modern option is to go to high voltage,
    25 kV @ 50 Hz, for high speed or very heavy trains.

    The Northeast rail corridor is a hodgepodge. From Washington DC to NYC
    it is 12.5 kV at 25 Hz (used to be 11 kV). From NYC to New Haven CT it
    is 12.5 kV @ 60 Hz. From New Haven to Boston (electrified comparatively recently) it is 25/50 kV at 60 Hz. (catenary to rail 25 kV, many 50 kV
    center tapped autotransformers along the way used to keep current out of
    the rails as much as possible). I believe on the locomotive it is automatically switched and converted to DC anyway)

    Again, Just the same in Europe.
    Some locomotives could handle four different current systems.
    Nationalistic choas was no better than private enterprise chaos.
    And yes, the TGV also uses a heavy transformer down to 1500 V,
    and switched thyristor bridges to rectify this to DC
    to drive the motors.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Tue Sep 26 11:14:47 2023
    On September 26, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    What I remember from long ago
    is that large electric motors and generators of the time were
    more efficient at lower frequencies. (including stationary units, not
    involving rails).

    I remember the converse, that at higher frequencies
    transformers and motors can be smaller,
    for the same energy throughput.

    It's a complicated trade off between size, efficiency, and
    heat dissipation. State of the art is to push the frequency up.

    A group working on this:
    https://superlab.stanford.edu/

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Sep 28 01:44:41 2023
    On 9/26/2023 5:28 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/24/2023 4:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/23/2023 4:48 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    The Northeast Corridor railroad line between NYC and Washington DC >>>>>> *still* uses 25 Hz. (in the early days, large motors were more efficient >>>>>> at lower frequencies)

    The reason probably wasn't motor eficiency, but skin effect
    in the ferromagnetic! iron rails used for the return current.
    Even more outlandish: 16 2/3 Hertz has been used in Europe
    for the same reason.

    I think much of it was eddy currents in motors and transformer cores.
    They hadn't realized they needed to laminate the cores to reduce eddy
    currents which are more at higher frequencies.

    Nonsense, I guess. Faraday already knew about eddy currents,
    and Foucault is credited with officially discovering them.
    (hence also 'Foucault currents')
    All well before large generators were being built,
    or railways became electrified.

    And all those pictures of ancient generators show laminated cores.
    You are underestimating those great ancients,
    and that is almost always a mistake.
    But it is technically impossible to laminate the rails. [1]

    What I remember from long ago (when I was rather fascinated with the
    topic) is that large electric motors and generators of the time were
    more efficient at lower frequencies. (including stationary units, not
    involving rails).

    I remember the converse, that at higher frequencies
    transformers and motors can be smaller,
    for the same energy throughput.
    Hence 400 Hz, for aeroplanes, to save weight.

    Very true. You don't want to be flying around heavy motors and
    generators all the time. Locomotives are the opposite, they want lots of weight.

    I may have jumped to conclusions regarding lamination.
    It may also be true that the steel technology didn't allow laminations
    thin enough. (ones I see are a fraction of a mm thick)

    Rolling metals is a huge subject with a long history. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_(metalworking)>
    By late 19th they were no doubt capable of rolling very thin steel
    plates.

    Now I want to know why low frequencies were more efficient back then.
    Maybe poor transformer steel alloys?

    Large motor
    efficiency vs. light bulb flicker were two competing reasons in a
    tradeoff when AC frequency was chosen. It was behind the apocryphal
    Tesla picking the grid frequency story.

    No idea. But 50 versus 60 Hz cannot have made much of a difference.

    Some people are sensitive to higher frequencies than others. I can only
    guess that the designers of the 50 Hz system could have been less
    sensitive than the engineers who came up with 60 Hz.

    Europe was a mess too.
    International trains had to stop at borders to change locomotives.
    (on a stretch that could be fed from both sides)
    Trivia: some international travel time records from the age of steam
    were not broken until the TGVs arrived.

    And yes, the locomotives must be heavy.
    (good for traction, but bad for rail maintenance)

    Jan

    [1] The other option is of course DC traction motors,
    with the DC being made by mercury arc rectifiers.
    The even more modern option is to go to high voltage,
    25 kV @ 50 Hz, for high speed or very heavy trains.

    The Northeast rail corridor is a hodgepodge. From Washington DC to NYC
    it is 12.5 kV at 25 Hz (used to be 11 kV). From NYC to New Haven CT it
    is 12.5 kV @ 60 Hz. From New Haven to Boston (electrified comparatively
    recently) it is 25/50 kV at 60 Hz. (catenary to rail 25 kV, many 50 kV
    center tapped autotransformers along the way used to keep current out of
    the rails as much as possible). I believe on the locomotive it is
    automatically switched and converted to DC anyway)

    Again, Just the same in Europe.
    Some locomotives could handle four different current systems.
    Nationalistic choas was no better than private enterprise chaos.
    And yes, the TGV also uses a heavy transformer down to 1500 V,
    and switched thyristor bridges to rectify this to DC
    to drive the motors.

    Interesting. I figured the US Northeast Corridor was the biggest mess.

    The NYC area will probably always be 12.5 kV because of clearance in
    tunnels and Penn Station. The stretch to Boston is the latest, which
    uses 50 kV to the nearest autotransformer (center tap is grounded/rails)
    with 25 kV to the trains.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)