• Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of the physics of your idiot gur

    From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 14 00:44:41 2024
    Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

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


    Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
    solar system is measuring the length
    of solar day. What is the result predicted
    by the Einsteinian physics?
    One prediction is - 99766. From the
    postulates. The second prediction is -
    86400. From definition.
    And similiarly with the prediction of
    a measurement of a meridian.

    If you insist in using the solar system as a local
    clock, no problem Woz. Just take your own copy of
    the solar system along yourself when moving around.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 14 06:25:13 2024
    W dniu 14.04.2024 o 00:44, Python pisze:
    Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

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


    Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
    solar system is measuring the length
    of solar day. What is the result predicted
    by the Einsteinian physics?
    One prediction is - 99766. From the
    postulates. The second prediction is -
    86400. From definition.
    And similiarly with the prediction of
    a measurement of a meridian.

    If you insist in using the solar system as a local
    clock,

    I don't.
    BTW, tell me, poor stinker, have you already
    learnt what a function is? Are you still
    trying to determine its properties applying a
    French definition of a different word?


    no problem Woz. Just take your own copy of
    the solar system along yourself when moving around.

    What an idiocy. Even considering the usual
    level of the Shit's worshippers - it's
    amazing, Pyt.










    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 14 14:57:28 2024
    Le 14/04/2024 à 00:44, Python a écrit :
    Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

    no problem Woz.

    Pourquoi ce ton familier, Pyth?

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Python on Mon Apr 15 00:47:24 2024
    On 4/13/2024 6:44 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

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



    If you insist in using the solar system as a local
    clock, no problem Woz. Just take your own copy of
    the solar system along yourself when moving around.

    Woz's problem is that he doesn't know the difference between a clock and
    time itself. Or he does but doesn't care.

    I'll let him out of the killfile long enough to address him on this (yet again).

    <knolp>

    Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
    solar system is measuring the length
    of solar day. What is the result predicted
    by the Einsteinian physics?
    One prediction is - 99766. From the
    postulates. The second prediction is -
    86400. From definition.
    And similiarly with the prediction of
    a measurement of a meridian.

    Because nobody knew of SR and its time dilation when this definition of
    the second was created, and nobody experienced anything moving at a
    speed c/2. Galilean/Newtonian time was assumed and a second being
    1/86400 earth rotation was expected to be valid everywhere.

    The rotating earth is a clock, no more and no less. It was the best
    clock anyone in 1905 had, which is why it was used to define the second.
    But the earth doesn't create time, or create the second or anything like
    that, not even before 1960. It's just a clock.

    Einstein would have told us that the earth is a clock and it is not
    local to the c/2 traveler, so the c/2 traveler would see the earth
    rotating too slowly since it is not local. It would cause confusion if
    time dilation was unknown and not compensated for, trying to base timed
    events on observation of the remote earth will cause trouble. That was
    part of the motivation for using the Cs-based definition, you don't need
    to observe the solar system or be stationary relative to it.

    Since Einstein's SR doesn't depend on the definition of a second, and it
    would be valid on Alpha Centauri where the inhabitants use the glozzyxn
    as the time unit. SR would work just fine there. And on earth, switching
    from 1/86400 of a rotation of a space rock to 9192631770 cycles of an
    atomic transition has zero effect on SR. The only effect would be a tiny difference between the length of 1/86400 space rock rotation and
    9192631770 atomic cycles, in part due to the wobbliness of the space rock.

    Bye,
    <plonk>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 15 08:06:33 2024
    W dniu 15.04.2024 o 06:47, Volney pisze:
    On 4/13/2024 6:44 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

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



    If you insist in using the solar system as a local
    clock, no problem Woz. Just take your own copy of
    the solar system along yourself when moving around.

    Woz's problem is that he doesn't know the difference between a clock and
    time itself. Or he does but doesn't care.


    And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
    is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
    stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
    moronic religion.


     Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
    solar system is measuring the length
    of solar day. What is the result predicted
    by the Einsteinian physics?
    One prediction is - 99766. From the
    postulates. The second prediction is -
    86400. From definition.
    And similiarly with the prediction of
    a measurement of a meridian.

    Because nobody knew of SR and its time dilation when this definition of
    the second was created

    And when your idiot guru started to mumble, his
    mumble was inconsistent, Vol.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Apr 15 13:38:16 2024
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 4/13/2024 6:44 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/04/2024 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a crit :

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



    If you insist in using the solar system as a local
    clock, no problem Woz. Just take your own copy of
    the solar system along yourself when moving around.

    Woz's problem is that he doesn't know the difference between a clock and
    time itself. Or he does but doesn't care.

    I'll let him out of the killfile long enough to address him on this (yet again).

    <knolp>

    Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
    solar system is measuring the length
    of solar day. What is the result predicted
    by the Einsteinian physics?
    One prediction is - 99766. From the
    postulates. The second prediction is -
    86400. From definition.
    And similiarly with the prediction of
    a measurement of a meridian.

    Because nobody knew of SR and its time dilation when this definition of
    the second was created, and nobody experienced anything moving at a
    speed c/2. Galilean/Newtonian time was assumed and a second being
    1/86400 earth rotation was expected to be valid everywhere.

    Woz has got even that wrong. Days are -not- 86400 seconds long,
    ever since Huygens invented the pendulum clock.
    (obolishing the sun dial)
    Days are 86400 second long only in the mean.
    The actual observations of time are of the siderial day of 23h56',
    and computed corrections are applied to that
    to obtain -mean- solar time.

    The rotating earth is a clock, no more and no less.

    Indeed. Newton's equations of motion naturally lead to the question:
    what is this 'time' that occurs in it.
    Huygens gave the answer, and Newton took it over.
    Time is what the clock says it is --because--
    a clock moves in occordance with Newton's laws.
    (a nicely circular definition, like all good physcs definitions)

    Which object moving in occordance with Newton's laws
    is the most suitable clock is only a matter of convinience.
    The Jovian moons for example, or the length of the tropical year
    will do as well. (but less conveniently so)

    It was the best
    clock anyone in 1905 had, which is why it was used to define the second.
    But the earth doesn't create time, or create the second or anything like that, not even before 1960. It's just a clock.

    Actually the first clocks accurate enough to measure irregularities
    in the rotation of the Earth appeared in the 1930s.
    (Shortt free pedulum clocks and stabilised quartz clocks, at ~10^-8)

    Einstein would have told us that the earth is a clock and it is not
    local to the c/2 traveler, so the c/2 traveler would see the earth
    rotating too slowly since it is not local. It would cause confusion if
    time dilation was unknown and not compensated for, trying to base timed events on observation of the remote earth will cause trouble. That was
    part of the motivation for using the Cs-based definition, you don't need
    to observe the solar system or be stationary relative to it.

    Einstein 1905 took over Huygens' definition,
    but he replaced 'moving in accordance with Newton's equations'
    by in 'moving in accordance with Maxwell's equations'.
    (the bouncing light mirror clock for example) [1]

    So the all of the yapping about the rotation of the Earth
    is pointless. As of 1905 the rotation of the Earth
    was no longer the theoretical basis for the definition of physical time.
    (that is, the time as it occurs in Maxwell's equations)

    It remained only as a practical definition,
    for the time being,

    Jan

    [1] Note the the time of a so called 'Cesium clock'
    is actualy the resonant frequency of standing EM waves cavity.
    The Cesium atoms merely serve to stabilise it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 15 15:56:34 2024
    W dniu 15.04.2024 o 13:38, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 4/13/2024 6:44 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

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



    If you insist in using the solar system as a local
    clock, no problem Woz. Just take your own copy of
    the solar system along yourself when moving around.

    Woz's problem is that he doesn't know the difference between a clock and
    time itself. Or he does but doesn't care.

    I'll let him out of the killfile long enough to address him on this (yet
    again).

    <knolp>

    Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
    solar system is measuring the length
    of solar day. What is the result predicted
    by the Einsteinian physics?
    One prediction is - 99766. From the
    postulates. The second prediction is -
    86400. From definition.
    And similiarly with the prediction of
    a measurement of a meridian.

    Because nobody knew of SR and its time dilation when this definition of
    the second was created, and nobody experienced anything moving at a
    speed c/2. Galilean/Newtonian time was assumed and a second being
    1/86400 earth rotation was expected to be valid everywhere.

    Woz has got even that wrong. Days are -not- 86400 seconds long,

    Lod, poor lying piece of shit, I don't say they are, I
    only say that your idiot guru (and the first generations
    of relativistic morons as well) were applying the
    definition of second referring to 1/86400 of a day.

    Will you have the impudence to deny?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)