• Perfect clocks

    From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 26 11:59:43 2024
    More stable, more independent on the environment
    and its fancies a device is - better it is.
    Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 26 12:29:12 2024
    Le 26/04/2024 à 11:59, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
    More stable, more independent on the environment
    and its fancies a device is - better it is.
    Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

    Like nature despised you completely? I understand why you
    hate nature then :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 26 13:21:54 2024
    W dniu 26.04.2024 o 12:29, Python pisze:
    Le 26/04/2024 à 11:59, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
    More stable, more independent on the environment
    and its fancies a device is - better it is.
    Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

    Like nature despised you completely? I understand why you
    hate nature then :-)



    See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your
    beloved guru to be not even consistent, and
    you can do nothing about it apart of raving
    and spitting.
    But, of course, you do what you can.

    BTW, have you already learnt what a function
    is? Are you still trying to determine its
    properties applying a French definition of
    a different word?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 26 14:21:39 2024
    Le 26/04/2024 à 13:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 26.04.2024 o 12:29, Python pisze:
    Le 26/04/2024 à 11:59, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
    More stable, more independent on the environment
    and its fancies a device is - better it is.
    Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

    Like nature despised you completely? I understand why you
    hate nature then :-)



    See, trash - I've proven

    that you are a demented ranting old fart? Sure.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Fri Apr 26 08:34:24 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    More stable, more independent on the environment
    and its fancies a device is - better it is.
    Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

    What would a "perfect clock" be made of, a Superman costume?

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 26 18:31:54 2024
    Le 26/04/2024 à 18:25, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
    ...
    The mumble of Maciej Wozniak was not even
    consistent, and he has been proven demented

    Sure.
    .
    Insults cast by some old Polish maniac are changing
    nothing, sorry,

    Exactly.

    trash.

    Nice signature.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 26 18:25:06 2024
    W dniu 26.04.2024 o 14:21, Python pisze:
    Le 26/04/2024 à 13:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 26.04.2024 o 12:29, Python pisze:
    Le 26/04/2024 à 11:59, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
    More stable, more independent on the environment
    and its fancies a device is - better it is.
    Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

    Like nature despised you completely? I understand why you
    hate nature then :-)



    See, trash - I've proven

    that you are a demented ranting old fart? Sure.

    The mumble of your idiot guru was not even
    consistent, and it has been proven. Insults
    cast by some religious maniacs are changing
    nothing, sorry, trash.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 26 20:41:59 2024
    W dniu 26.04.2024 o 18:31, Python pisze:
    Le 26/04/2024 à 18:25, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
    ...
    The mumble of Maciej Wozniak was not even
    consistent, and he has been proven demented

    Sure.

    No, I didn't write it. Poor stinker Python is
    impudently lying, as expected from a Shit's
    worshipper.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Fri Apr 26 21:09:07 2024
    Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:

    More stable, more independent on the environment
    and its fancies a device is - better it is.
    Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

    Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 26 22:09:52 2024
    Le 26/04/2024 à 20:41, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
    W dniu 26.04.2024 o 18:31, Python pisze:
    Le 26/04/2024 à 18:25, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
    ...
    The mumble of Maciej Wozniak was not even
    consistent, and he has been proven demented

    Sure.

    No, I didn't write it

    I corrected a few typos.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 26 21:36:55 2024
    W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:

    More stable, more independent on the environment
    and its fancies a device is - better it is.
    Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

    Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,

    What is "perfect nature", Lod?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 26 22:31:24 2024
    W dniu 26.04.2024 o 22:09, Python pisze:
    Le 26/04/2024 à 20:41, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
    W dniu 26.04.2024 o 18:31, Python pisze:
    Le 26/04/2024 à 18:25, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
    ...
    The mumble of Maciej Wozniak was not even
    consistent, and he has been proven demented

    Sure.

    No, I didn't write it

    I corrected a few typos.

    You lied impudently, as expected from a Shit's
    fanatic. Just like your twin-idiot Dono.

    Well, The Shit of your idiot guru has been proven
    inconsistent; what else could you do.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Apr 27 11:50:59 2024
    Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:

    W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:

    More stable, more independent on the environment
    and its fancies a device is - better it is.
    Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

    Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,

    What is "perfect nature", Lod?

    There is only one 'Nature',

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 27 13:01:48 2024
    W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:50, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:

    W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:

    More stable, more independent on the environment
    and its fancies a device is - better it is.
    Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

    Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,

    What is "perfect nature", Lod?

    There is only one 'Nature',

    And that "perfect nature" you mentioned - is?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Apr 27 11:07:42 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:50, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:

    W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:

    More stable, more independent on the environment
    and its fancies a device is - better it is.
    Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

    Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,

    What is "perfect nature", Lod?

    There is only one 'Nature',

    And that "perfect nature" you mentioned - is?

    Nature is perfect because it could not be possible any other way.



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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Apr 27 19:50:34 2024
    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:

    W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:

    More stable, more independent on the environment
    and its fancies a device is - better it is.
    Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

    A very strange assertion since clocks are supposed to
    measure something that is at the very basis of reality.

    Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,

    What is "perfect nature", Lod?

    There is only one 'Nature',

    Jan

    Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
    The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
    "time" ... but what is "time"? Does it have one, or more,
    parts? What is "now"? Clocks are supposed to model time,
    so what what do we assume "time" is?

    At present, we assume the duration of a second of time is
    described by 9,192, 631,770 cycles of the standard Cs-133
    hyper-fine transition. Since that's a part of nature, Woz's
    assertion makes no sense. OTOH, do we count anything built
    by humans as a part of nature, too?

    That fact appears to be that there is "something" that rules
    the passage of time, but we have no clue as to what that is.
    One guy with whom I had a discussion about that: it's a
    quantum action effect. Maybe we'll find it someday, 'way
    down there at the Planck time level? Could be, I dunno.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 27 23:19:30 2024
    W dniu 27.04.2024 o 21:50, gharnagel pisze:
    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:

    W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:

    More stable, more independent on the environment
    and its fancies a device is - better it is.
    Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

    A very strange assertion since clocks are supposed to
    measure something that is at the very basis of reality.

    Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,
    What is "perfect nature", Lod?

    There is only one 'Nature',

    Jan

    Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
    The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
    "time" ... but what is "time"?

    Time is what clocks indicate - your idiot guru
    was actually right at this point. It's no
    way a part of nature, sorry, poor halfbrain.


    Does it have one, or more,
    parts?  What is "now"?  Clocks are supposed to model time,
    so what what do we assume "time" is?

    At present, we assume the duration of a second of time is
    described by 9,192, 631,770 cycles of the standard Cs-133

    Oh, do you? Sane people don't, anyone can
    check GPS.


    hyper-fine transition.  Since that's a part of nature, Woz's
    assertion makes no sense.

    Since it's not - YOUR assertions makes no
    sense, Har.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Sat Apr 27 16:46:14 2024
    The Starmaker wrote:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    More stable, more independent on the environment
    and its fancies a device is - better it is.
    Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

    What would a "perfect clock" be made of, a Superman costume?

    The perfect clock in Albert Einstein is any 'clock' that is related
    to...atomic bombs.


    the list is long...

    but I'll start the list
    cause yous find 'thinking' causes too much energy on your part...

    doomsday clock
    denotation atomic bomb clock




    oooh my head hurts.




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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sun Apr 28 00:08:02 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 27.04.2024 o 21:50, gharnagel pisze:

    Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
    The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
    "time" ... but what is "time"?

    Time is what clocks indicate - your idiot guru
    was actually right at this point. It's no
    way a part of nature, sorry, poor halfbrain.

    So the Great Quarterbrain, Wozzie, believes time is fictitious,
    does he? Typical falsehoods from the king of phoniness.

    Everyone knows that time is nature's way of keeping everything
    from happening at once. So it is not only part of nature, it's
    at the very basis of nature.

    At present, we assume the duration of a second of time is
    described by 9,192, 631,770 cycles of the standard Cs-133

    Oh, do you? Sane people don't,

    Sane people DO, which proves Wozzie-boy is not sane.

    anyone can check GPS.

    Yes, they can; but, apparently, Wozzie is incapable of figuring
    out what's happening. Or he is just fatally dishonest. One can
    never be sure NOW, but he will run into the life-grinder one day:

    "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." -- Revelations 21:8

    hyper-fine transition.  Since that's a part of nature, Woz's
    assertion makes no sense.

    Since it's not - YOUR assertions makes no sense, Har.

    "He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool"

    So is Wozzie a fool and avoids the fate above, or is he a liar and runs
    into it head-on?

    “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may
    deride it, but in the end, there it is.” -- Winston Churchill

    "Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters." -- Albert Einstein


    “To believers, the atheist and the religiously corrupt boil down
    to the same person, the self-righteous: one denies Truth to fit
    his own agenda; the other manipulates Truth to fit his own agenda.”
    ― Criss Jami

    Wozzie appears to be the second kind: a manipulator of the truth, but then
    he often denies it straight out.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 28 06:04:40 2024
    W dniu 28.04.2024 o 02:08, gharnagel pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 27.04.2024 o 21:50, gharnagel pisze:

    Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
    The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
    "time" ... but what is "time"?

    Time is what clocks indicate - your idiot guru
    was actually right at this point. It's no
    way a part of nature, sorry, poor halfbrain.

    So the Great Quarterbrain, Wozzie, believes time is fictitious,
    does he?

    That's right, Harrie. UTC, TAI, zone times are
    kind of fictitious - while your local proper time
    absurd, on the other hand, is completely fictitious.
    So was Newton's absolute time, of course.



    Everyone knows that time is nature's way of keeping everything

    A bunch of mystical religious idiots may know.
    Clocks are human made devices, time is a part of
    human organization. Has nothing in common with
    with nature. And with your precios experiments
    neither.

    At present, we assume the duration of a second of time is
    described by 9,192, 631,770 cycles of the standard Cs-133

    Oh, do you? Sane people don't,

    Sane people DO

    Anyone can check GPS, sane people do assume that
    it is 9,192, 631,770 on Earth but 9,192, 631,774
    on a GPS satellite.
    Your insults and ravings can change nothing, Harrie.
    Sorry, poor trash.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Sun Apr 28 12:40:42 2024
    On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
    The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
    "time" ...

    Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
    that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
    or requires time to exist then nothing is left.

    but what is "time"?

    Many things are called "time". Without a disambiguating context
    "time" is not a concept but a topic.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 28 13:32:51 2024
    W dniu 28.04.2024 o 11:40, Mikko pisze:
    On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
    The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
    "time" ...

    Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
    that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
    or requires time to exist then nothing is left.

    but what is "time"?

    Many things are called "time".


    Does every of them have the property above,
    poor halfbrain?
    Time is a tool for describing things. If you
    take it away - everything stays as it is, you
    just can't say a word about it anymore.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Mikko on Sun Apr 28 10:45:18 2024
    Mikko wrote:

    On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
    The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
    "time" ...

    Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
    that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
    or requires time to exist then nothing is left.

    but what is "time"?

    Many things are called "time". Without a disambiguating context
    "time" is not a concept but a topic.

    --
    Mikko


    What about if you reverse time, Mikko? How do you measure the reversal
    of time?? Does the Sun go backwards??? Do I get younger????


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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Sun Apr 28 11:33:38 2024
    The Starmaker wrote:

    Mikko wrote:

    On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
    The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
    "time" ...

    Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
    that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
    or requires time to exist then nothing is left.

    but what is "time"?

    Many things are called "time". Without a disambiguating context
    "time" is not a concept but a topic.

    --
    Mikko

    What about if you reverse time, Mikko? How do you measure the reversal
    of time?? Does the Sun go backwards??? Do I get younger????



    Does the biologicial clock work in conjustion with the Sun?



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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 28 21:19:23 2024
    W dniu 28.04.2024 o 20:33, The Starmaker pisze:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    Mikko wrote:

    On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
    The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
    "time" ...

    Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
    that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
    or requires time to exist then nothing is left.

    but what is "time"?

    Many things are called "time". Without a disambiguating context
    "time" is not a concept but a topic.

    --
    Mikko

    What about if you reverse time, Mikko? How do you measure the reversal
    of time?? Does the Sun go backwards??? Do I get younger????



    Does the biologicial clock work in conjustion with the Sun?


    Never saw any "biological clock". Have you?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Mikko on Sun Apr 28 20:52:14 2024
    Mikko wrote:

    On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
    The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
    "time" ...

    Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
    that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
    or requires time to exist then nothing is left.

    But isn't nature dynamic? Seasons change, animals live and die,
    the earth gets older, stars evolve. These require the concept of
    time.

    but what is "time"?

    Many things are called "time". Without a disambiguating context
    "time" is not a concept but a topic.

    Isn't time both a concept AND a topic? I suppose the same can be
    said about nature. So what? How has that furthered the discussion?

    Wozzie lies about time by doing the opposite of disambiguating:
    he obfuscates, he muddles, he reads a clock located elsewhere and
    pretends it would read the same if he were right beside it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 29 07:55:27 2024
    W dniu 28.04.2024 o 22:52, gharnagel pisze:
    Mikko wrote:

    On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
    The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
    "time" ...

    Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
    that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
    or requires time to exist then nothing is left.

    But isn't nature dynamic?  Seasons change, animals live and die,
    the earth gets older, stars evolve.  These require the concept of
    time.

    No, poor trash, these don't.
    It's your text that does. Time is a
    core element of our thinking/speaking
    system.



    Isn't time both a concept AND a topic?  I suppose the same can be
    said about nature.  So what?  How has that furthered the discussion?

    Wozzie lies about time by doing the opposite of disambiguating:

    Your raving and insults won't help anything,
    sane people will keep considering second
    as 9 192 631 770 on Earth and 9 192 631 774
    on a GPS satellite.
    Common sense was warning your bunch of
    idiots.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Mon Apr 29 11:55:55 2024
    On 2024-04-28 20:52:14 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Mikko wrote:

    On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
    The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
    "time" ...

    Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
    that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
    or requires time to exist then nothing is left.

    But isn't nature dynamic? Seasons change, animals live and die,
    the earth gets older, stars evolve. These require the concept of
    time.

    Yes. If you remove time, you must also remove all change and deth
    and getting older and evolving. You must also remove seasons, animals
    earth and stars, as all these require the concept of time. And the
    Universe itself is evolving, so you must remove that, too.

    but what is "time"?

    Many things are called "time". Without a disambiguating context
    "time" is not a concept but a topic.

    Isn't time both a concept AND a topic? I suppose the same can be
    said about nature. So what? How has that furthered the discussion?

    No, it is not a concept. There are several concepts that are often
    called "time" and even more that are sometimes called so.

    Wozzie lies about time by doing the opposite of disambiguating:
    he obfuscates, he muddles, he reads a clock located elsewhere and
    pretends it would read the same if he were right beside it.

    So do manu others, at least to some extent. But no point to care
    about words of those who have nothing to tell.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 29 13:20:49 2024
    W dniu 29.04.2024 o 10:55, Mikko pisze:
    On 2024-04-28 20:52:14 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Mikko wrote:

    On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
    The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
    "time" ...

    Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
    that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
    or requires time to exist then nothing is left.

    But isn't nature dynamic?  Seasons change, animals live and die,
    the earth gets older, stars evolve.  These require the concept of
    time.

    Yes. If you remove time, you must also remove all change and deth
    and getting older and evolving. You must also remove seasons, animals

    Mystical mumble of a religious maniac.
    Nope, nothing like that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon Apr 29 12:27:46 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 28.04.2024 o 11:40, Mikko pisze:

    On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
    The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
    "time" ...

    Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
    that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
    or requires time to exist then nothing is left.

    but what is "time"?

    Many things are called "time".

    Does every of them have the property above,
    poor halfbrain?

    That should be "Do all of them," quarterbrain.

    Time is a tool for describing things.

    So Wozzie believes time is a tool, invented, not a concept. His
    problem is that he just proved that what Mikko said is correct.
    Wozzie is dishonest because he takes only a part of the answer
    and pretends that it's ALL of the answer.

    If you take it away - everything stays as it is, you
    just can't say a word about it anymore.

    So Wozzie quarterbrain believes if we didn't have clocks all
    processes of nature would stop? Weird!!

    https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t&ei=UTF-8&p=my+grandfather%27s+clock#id=2&vid=47e1d2d247b785182417aa9d93eaa0df&action=click

    True, clocks are tools, but time is a concept. Wozzie confuses
    the two, just like he does practically everything else.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 29 16:30:03 2024
    W dniu 29.04.2024 o 14:27, gharnagel pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 28.04.2024 o 11:40, Mikko pisze:

    On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:
    Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
    The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
    "time" ...
    Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
    that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
    or requires time to exist then nothing is left.
    but what is "time"?
    Many things are called "time".

    Does every of them have the property above,
    poor halfbrain?

    That should be "Do all of them," quarterbrain.

    And that's because...?

    Time is a tool for describing things.

    So Wozzie believes time is a tool, invented, not a concept.

    Of course it's a concept. Concepts are invented.




    His
    problem is that he just proved that what Mikko said is correct.

    Which one? He said 2 things, generally
    excluding each other, as expected from
    a relativistic idiot.


    Wozzie is dishonest because he takes only a part of the answer
    and pretends that it's ALL of the answer.

    Harrie, on the other hand, is dishonest because
    he lies impudently.


    If you take it away - everything stays as it is, you
    just can't  say a word about it anymore.

    So Wozzie quarterbrain believes if we didn't have clocks all
    processes of nature would stop?

    Nope. Oppositely - you and your fellow idiot Mikko
    believe that, because - with all of your mystical
    nonsensens - you're still defining time as "what
    clocks indicate". Or don't you?


      Weird!!

    https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t&ei=UTF-8&p=my+grandfather%27s+clock#id=2&vid=47e1d2d247b785182417aa9d93eaa0df&action=click

    True, clocks are tools, but time is a concept

    It is.
    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/concept
    How did you imagine an idea can't be a tool? And
    how did you imagine that nature is creating ideas?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon Apr 29 17:41:07 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 29.04.2024 o 14:27, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 28.04.2024 o 11:40, Mikko pisze:

    On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
    The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
    "time" ...

    Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
    that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
    or requires time to exist then nothing is left.

    but what is "time"?

    Many things are called "time".

    Does every of them have the property above,
    poor halfbrain?

    That should be "Do all of them," quarterbrain.

    And that's because...?

    "Does every of them have" is incorrect English, eighthbrain.

    Time is a tool for describing things.

    So Wozzie believes time is a tool, invented, not a concept.

    Of course it's a concept. Concepts are invented.

    SO Wozzie starts with the the half-answers and deception again.
    Concepts are only "half invented," unlike Wozzie's assertions,
    which are totally invented.

    Concepts describe some characteristic of the real or supposed
    world, so they have some basis in fact. Tools are completely
    different, so Wozzie is trying to confuse things again.

    His
    problem is that he just proved that what Mikko said is correct.

    Which one? He said 2 things, generally
    excluding each other, as expected from
    a relativistic idiot.

    If you can't figure it out, you prove yourself the idiot.

    Wozzie is dishonest because he takes only a part of the answer
    and pretends that it's ALL of the answer.

    Harrie, on the other hand, is dishonest because
    he lies impudently.

    Nope. I don't lie. I tell it like it is, sometimes allegorically.
    Wozzie proves himself the liar by his dishonest posts.

    If you take it away - everything stays as it is, you
    just can't  say a word about it anymore.

    So Wozzie quarterbrain believes if we didn't have clocks all
    processes of nature would stop?

    Nope. Oppositely

    So we must have clocks so nature can change?

    Really, really wierd!

    - you and your fellow idiot Mikko
    believe that,

    :-))

    because - with all of your mystical
    nonsensens - you're still defining time as "what
    clocks indicate". Or don't you?

    I'm not. I don't think Mikko is, either. Wozzie just continues his
    lying. He just can't help it.

    https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t&ei=UTF-8&p=my+grandfather%27s+clock#id=2&vid=47e1d2d247b785182417aa9d93eaa0df&action=click

    True, clocks are tools, but time is a concept

    It is.

    I'm glad Wozzie has finally developed into something better than an eighthbrain.

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/concept
    How did you imagine an idea can't be a tool?

    Now THAT'S a good concept! He gets fully back to quaerterbrain.

    And how did you imagine that nature is creating ideas?

    Oops! Nobody said that, that's just some more of Wozzie's confusion.
    Back to 8thbrain.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 29 20:42:20 2024
    W dniu 29.04.2024 o 19:41, gharnagel pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 29.04.2024 o 14:27, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 28.04.2024 o 11:40, Mikko pisze:

    On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:

    Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
    The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
    "time" ...

    Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
    that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
    or requires time to exist then nothing is left.

    but what is "time"?

    Many things are called "time".

    Does every of them have the property above,
    poor halfbrain?
    That should be "Do all of them," quarterbrain.

    And that's because...?

    "Does every of them have" is incorrect English, eighthbrain.

    Not impossible, but I would rather think you've
    fabricated such a rule because it was comfortable
    for you at the moment.


    Time is a tool for describing things.
    So Wozzie believes time is a tool, invented, not a concept.
    Of course it's a concept. Concepts are invented.

    SO Wozzie starts with the the half-answers and deception again.
    Concepts are only "half invented,"


    Nope. Concepts are information, I'm an information
    engineer, you're just arrogant idiot suffering
    the DK effect. Concepts are definitely invented.



    His
    problem is that he just proved that what Mikko said is correct.

    Which one? He said 2 things, generally
    excluding each other, as expected from
    a relativistic idiot.

    If you can't figure it out, you prove yourself the idiot.

    Wozzie is dishonest because he takes only a part of the answer
    and pretends that it's ALL of the answer.

    Harrie, on the other hand, is dishonest because
    he lies impudently.

    Nope.  I don't lie.

    Yes. You do. Typical, of course, for a Shit's
    worshipper.


    - you and your fellow idiot Mikko
    believe that,

    :-))

    because - with all of  your mystical
    nonsensens - you're still defining time as "what
    clocks indicate". Or don't you?

    I'm not.  I don't think Mikko is, either.


    Oops. That's how your idiot guru defined time. This
    is the official definition of the church of The Shit.
    So - talking about time you're ignoring it - what
    are you talking about, then?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon Apr 29 22:08:51 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 29.04.2024 o 19:41, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 29.04.2024 o 14:27, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Does every of them have the property above,
    poor halfbrain?

    That should be "Do all of them," quarterbrain.

    And that's because...?


    "Does every of them have" is incorrect English, eighthbrain.

    Not impossible, but I would rather think you've
    fabricated such a rule because it was comfortable
    for you at the moment.

    Of course Wozzie prefers that solution that makes others dishonest.
    This is just proof of his dishonesty.

    What's uncomfortable to me is when someone behaves like an ass, which
    is what Wozzie has perfected.

    Time is a tool for describing things.
    So Wozzie believes time is a tool, invented, not a concept.

    Of course it's a concept. Concepts are invented.

    SO Wozzie starts with the the half-answers and deception again.
    Concepts are only "half invented,"

    Nope. Concepts are information,

    Well, that depends on what is "information." Another slippery slope
    that Wozzie uses to obfuscate.

    I'm an information engineer,

    You're doing a very poor job of it.

    you're just arrogant idiot suffering the DK effect. Concepts are
    definitely invented.

    That's Wozzie trying to obfuscate again.


    Wozzie is dishonest because he takes only a part of the answer
    and pretends that it's ALL of the answer.

    Harrie, on the other hand, is dishonest because
    he lies impudently.

    Nope.  I don't lie.

    Yes. You do.

    Says the congenital liar :-))

    Typical, of course, for a Shit's worshipper.

    Now THAT's going too far. I do NOT worship Wozzie!

    because - with all of  your mystical
    nonsensens - you're still defining time as "what
    clocks indicate". Or don't you?

    I'm not.  I don't think Mikko is, either.

    Oops. That's how your idiot guru defined time.

    He's not an idiot like Wozzie is.

    This is the official definition of the church of The
    Shit.

    Says the congenital liar.

    So - talking about time you're ignoring it - what
    are you talking about, then?

    Au contraire. I tried to have a meaningful discussion
    about time. Unfortunately, Wozzie is non compos mentos
    and fundamentally dishonest.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 30 04:44:26 2024
    W dniu 30.04.2024 o 00:08, gharnagel pisze:

    "Does every of them have" is incorrect English, eighthbrain.

    Not impossible, but I would rather think you've
    fabricated such a rule because it was comfortable
    for you at the moment.

    Of course Wozzie prefers that solution that makes others dishonest.

    If you've not fabricated the rule -
    well, show me some link.


    Of course it's a concept. Concepts are invented.
    SO Wozzie starts with the the half-answers and deception again.
    Concepts are only "half invented,"

    Nope. Concepts are information,

    Well, that depends on what is "information."


    It may, but I'm still an information engineer,
    you're still a DK idiot and concepts are still
    invented.


    I'm an information engineer,

    You're doing a very poor job of it.

    Said a DK idiot. But my employers are satisfied.




    because - with all of  your mystical
    nonsensens - you're still defining time as "what
    clocks indicate". Or don't you?
    I'm not.  I don't think Mikko is, either.
    Oops. That's how your idiot guru defined time.

    He's not an idiot like Wozzie is.

    This is the official definition of the church of The
    Shit.

    Says the congenital liar.

    So - talking about time you're ignoring it - what
    are you talking about, then?

    Au contraire.  I tried to have a meaningful discussion
    about time.

    Time i.e what?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Wed May 1 11:41:08 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 30.04.2024 o 00:08, gharnagel pisze:

    "Does every of them have" is incorrect English, eighthbrain.

    Not impossible, but I would rather think you've
    fabricated such a rule because it was comfortable
    for you at the moment.

    Of course Wozzie prefers that solution that makes others dishonest.

    If you've not fabricated the rule -
    well, show me some link.

    Wozzie doesn't deserve a link because he is a dishonest troll,
    but I will magnanimously provide one:

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/every

    "Every" is an adjective. An adjective modifies a noun. Wozzie didn't
    provide the noun.

    Concepts are only "half invented,"

    Nope. Concepts are information,

    Well, that depends on what is "information."

    It may, but I'm still an information engineer,

    Who can't define information :-)

    you're still a DK idiot and concepts are still
    invented.

    and who can't define a concept.

    I'm an information engineer,

    You're doing a very poor job of it.

    Said a DK idiot. But my employers are satisfied.

    Nobody here will employ Wozzie because his "information"
    is deceptive and false.

    So - talking about time you're ignoring it - what
    are you talking about, then?

    Au contraire.  I tried to have a meaningful discussion
    about time.

    Time i.e what?

    Yep, Wozzie doesn't even understand the question. He just
    jumps in and begins demeaning people. Sophomore behavior
    is seldom pretty.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 1 19:06:53 2024
    W dniu 01.05.2024 o 13:41, gharnagel pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 30.04.2024 o 00:08, gharnagel pisze:

    "Does every of them have" is incorrect English, eighthbrain.

    Not impossible, but I would rather think you've
    fabricated such a rule because it was comfortable
    for you at the moment.
    Of course Wozzie prefers that solution that makes others dishonest.

    If you've not fabricated the rule -
    well, show me some link.

    Wozzie doesn't deserve a link because he is a dishonest troll,
    but I will magnanimously provide one:

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/every

    "Every" is an adjective.  An adjective modifies a noun. Wozzie didn't provide the noun.

    Concepts are only "half invented,"

    Nope. Concepts are information,
    Well, that depends on what is "information."
    It may, but I'm still an information engineer,

    Who can't define information :-)

    you're still a DK idiot and concepts are still
    invented.

    and who can't define a concept.

    Even without the ability of defining information,
    my competence in the subject exists, in opposition
    to yours.
    And your ravings and insults are not going
    to change anything - sane people, as anyone
    can check at GPS, keep assuming the
    second to be 9 192 631 770 on Earth, but
    9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite. Common
    sense was warning your bunch of idiots.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat May 4 04:05:10 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Even without the ability of defining information,
    my competence in the subject exists,

    Perhaps Wozzie is of some value to his employer.

    in opposition to yours.

    My "competence"? Wozzie can't even define the word.

    And your ravings and insults are not going
    to change anything

    The only people I insult get back what they dish out.
    Wozzie is just being an infantile whiner.

    - sane people, as anyone can check at GPS, keep
    assuming the second to be 9 192 631 770 on Earth,

    Wozzie can't even tell the truth on such a simple
    thing. The second is DEFINED to be 9 192 631 770
    transitions the hyperfine Cs-133 point. There is
    no "assuming" about it.

    but 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.

    How does Wozzie KNOW that it's "9 192 631 774 on a
    GPS satellite"? He doesn't, of course. He's taking
    the GPS engineer's word for it. There's "information"
    for him. Why does he accept THAT information? What
    is he trying to say? Seem like he's just trying to
    obfuscate.

    Common sense was warning your bunch of idiots.

    :-)) Wozzie isn't fooling anyone with his lying
    nonsense. He seems to believe that if a one meter
    rod subtends an arc of Theta degrees at distance D,
    it should subtend the same arc at distance 2D.

    That is really what Wozzie's stupid ASSertion, his
    "common sense" amounts to.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat May 4 07:10:12 2024
    W dniu 04.05.2024 o 06:05, gharnagel pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Even without the ability of defining information,
    my competence in the subject exists,

    Perhaps Wozzie is of some value to his employer.

    in opposition to yours.

    My "competence"?  Wozzie can't even define the word.

    Can you, Harrie?
    Having no clue about the subject you don't
    know that competence doesn't require that, and
    explaining basics to such a DK idiot would be
    a waste of time.


    And your ravings and insults are not going
    to change anything

    The only people I insult get back what they dish out.
    Wozzie is just being an infantile whiner.

    The only people I insult get back what they dish out,
    Harrie. Talking to relativistic scum I must descend
    to its level; sad...


    - sane people, as anyone can check at GPS, keep
    assuming the second to be  9 192 631 770 on Earth,

    Wozzie can't even tell the truth on such a simple
    thing.  The second is DEFINED to be 9 192 631 770

    And anyone can check GPS - outside of your insane
    church nobody cares about its wannabe definition.

    transitions the hyperfine Cs-133 point.  There is
    no "assuming" about it.

    Harrie, you've said "assume" yourself, wanna
    the quoting? Even such a piece of fanatic
    shit can't lie all the time, sometimes it's
    telling the truth and that was a case.




    but 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.

    How does Wozzie KNOW that it's "9 192 631 774 on a
    GPS satellite"?  He doesn't, of course.  He's taking
    the GPS engineer's word for it.

    Yes, I do know. Yes, I'm taking their word.
    Not even their. As said before, relativistic
    scum can't lie 100% of time and sometimes
    they admit that apart of the wannabe second of
    their insane church there is another which is
    applied in serious measurements.


    Common sense was warning your bunch of idiots.

    :-))  Wozzie isn't fooling anyone with his lying
    nonsense.  He seems to believe that if a one meter
    rod subtends an arc of Theta degrees at distance D,

    What seems to you is your seeming, Harrie.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat May 4 10:46:19 2024
    On 5/1/24 12:06 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    sane people, as anyone can check at GPS, keep assuming the second to
    be 9 192 631 770 on Earth,

    This is not an "assumption", this is the definition of the second --
    that's what these words mean.

    but 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.

    This is not true. NOBODY thinks that (except some deranged idiots around
    here).

    On a GPS satellite, the usual definition of the second applies. But in
    order for the SIGNALS from GPS satellites to be received on earth at the correct frequencies, the time-base on the satellite must tick about 4
    parts in 10^10 more slowly than a corresponding time-base on earth's
    geoid (mean sea level).

    It turns out that the correction to the satellite time-base to cancel
    the blueshift of the signals is also the correction required to keep the satellite clocks in sync with standard clocks on earth's geoid, over
    long periods of time (days to years). So the indicated time of satellite
    clocks advances with this (slightly slower) time-base. This is not happenstance, and is a check on the internal consistency of General
    Relativity.

    Wozniak should stop making stuff up and pretending it is true -- that's useless.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat May 4 19:51:39 2024
    W dniu 04.05.2024 o 17:46, Tom Roberts pisze:
    On 5/1/24 12:06 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    sane people, as anyone can check at GPS, keep assuming the second to
    be  9 192 631 770 on Earth,

    This is not an "assumption", this is the definition of the second --
    that's what these words mean.

    1) Poincare has said that axiooms are "definitions
    in disguise", or something like that. I would say
    it differently - anyway, definitions are assumed.

    2)Could find a quoting where you admit that in the
    context of GPS the word means something else.
    See: even such pathetic pieces of fanatic shit
    like you or Harrie can't lie 100% of time.


    On a GPS satellite, the usual definition of the second applies.

    No.


    But in
    order for the SIGNALS from GPS satellites to be received on earth at the correct frequencies, the time-base on the satellite must tick about

    Common sense was warning your idiot guru, wasn't it?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sun May 5 23:59:43 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 04.05.2024 o 17:46, Tom Roberts pisze:

    On 5/1/24 12:06 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    sane people, as anyone can check at GPS, keep assuming the second to
    be  9 192 631 770 on Earth,

    This is not an "assumption", this is the definition of the second --
    that's what these words mean.

    1) Poincare has said that axiooms are "definitions
    in disguise", or something like that. I would say
    it differently - anyway, definitions are assumed.

    SOme are, but not all. This is an example of Wozzie pretending that
    something is true therefore something else is also true. "T'ain't
    necessarily so. We are free to choose a standard fro length, for
    time, for mass, for charge, etc. Other civilizations may choose
    different standards, so in that sense (and only in that sense) are
    such definitions "assumed." But not in the way Wozzie wants to be
    deceitful about it.

    2)Could find a quoting where you admit that in the
    context of GPS the word means something else.

    The fact is that if one had an accurate 1 second per second clock
    aboard the GPS, it would tick at exactly 1 second per second, but
    it would not appear to from the ground. In fact, the first bird
    up there had exactly that and it didn't tick at 1 second per second
    at the ground. That's why they switched to the alternate timing.

    See: even such pathetic pieces of fanatic shit
    like you or Harrie can't lie 100% of time.

    See? Wozzie lies ALL the time.

    On a GPS satellite, the usual definition of the second applies.

    No.

    Yes! Wozzie lies again.

    But in order for the SIGNALS from GPS satellites to be received
    on earth at the correct frequencies, the time-base on the satellite
    must tick about

    [4 ticks in 10^10 slower]

    Yes. So what?

    Common sense was warning your idiot guru, wasn't it?

    The idiots were the engineers that disbelieved relativity. Fortunately,
    sanity prevailed and a switch was provided to modify the on-board clock.
    Wozzie calls that a "time-base" and pretends that it means GR is wrong,
    what?! The guy makes no sense at all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 6 07:11:47 2024
    W dniu 06.05.2024 o 06:55, Volney pisze:
    On 5/4/2024 12:05 AM, gharnagel wrote:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Even without the ability of defining information,
    my competence in the subject exists,

    Perhaps Wozzie is of some value to his employer.

    Every company needs someone to dump the trash and clean the toilets.


    See, trash - I've proven that the mumble
    of your beloved idiot guru was not even
    consistent and you can do nothing about it
    but to lie and slander. But you do what you
    can.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 6 07:07:12 2024
    W dniu 06.05.2024 o 01:59, gharnagel pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 04.05.2024 o 17:46, Tom Roberts pisze:

    On 5/1/24 12:06 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    sane people, as anyone can check at GPS, keep assuming the second
    to > > be  9 192 631 770 on Earth,
    This is not an "assumption", this is the definition of the second --
    that's what these words mean.

    1) Poincare has said that axiooms are "definitions
    in disguise", or something like that. I would say
    it differently - anyway, definitions are assumed.

    SOme are, but not all.


    Because a DK idiot is believing and asserting?

    See, Harrie - definitions are not physical
    entities, your "authority" in the field is
    completely self-appointed. And definitions are
    really a special form of axioms. Ready to
    discuss it, yes, but not with a DK idiot.




    2)Could find a quoting where you admit that in the
    context of GPS the word means something else.

    The fact is that if one had an accurate 1 second

    The fact is that outside of your mad church nobody
    cares what your mad church is assuming accurate or
    not.
    The fact is also that common sense was warning
    your idiot guru.
    But you can keep fooling yourself insisting that
    GPS has inaccurate clocks, why not; at least
    you've (temporarily?) stopped to deny they're real.



    per second clock
    aboard the GPS, it would tick at exactly 1 second per second, but
    it would not appear to from the ground.  In fact, the first bird
    up there had exactly that and it didn't tick at 1 second per second
    at the ground.  That's why they switched to the alternate timing.

    See: even such pathetic pieces of fanatic shit
    like you or Harrie can't lie 100% of time.

    See?  Wozzie lies ALL the time.

    On a GPS satellite, the usual definition of the second applies.

    No.

    Yes!

    No. I could find a quoting in which even
    that piece of shit Roberts is admitting it.




    Common sense was warning your idiot guru, wasn't it?

    The idiots were the engineers that disbelieved relativity.

    Your ravings and spitting won't change anything,
    nobody sane is assuming that GPS clocks are inaccurate
    (because SO!!!) and nobody sane ever will be.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Mon May 6 00:55:59 2024
    On 5/4/2024 12:05 AM, gharnagel wrote:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Even without the ability of defining information,
    my competence in the subject exists,

    Perhaps Wozzie is of some value to his employer.

    Every company needs someone to dump the trash and clean the toilets.

    :-))  Wozzie isn't fooling anyone with his lying
    nonsense.  He seems to believe that if a one meter
    rod subtends an arc of Theta degrees at distance D,
    it should subtend the same arc at distance 2D.

    That is really what Wozzie's stupid ASSertion, his
    "common sense" amounts to.

    His biggest problem is that so much of what he believes in is exactly
    backwards from what science states, and attributes his backwards beliefs
    to the science.

    I have him on a 'soft killfile' meaning his posts are marked read but
    not deleted, so I can go back and read them if there's ever a reason to
    do so.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon May 6 02:59:08 2024
    On 5/4/2024 11:46 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 5/1/24 12:06 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    sane people, as anyone can check at GPS, keep assuming the second to
    be  9 192 631 770 on Earth,

    This is not an "assumption", this is the definition of the second --
    that's what these words mean.

    but 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.

    This is not true. NOBODY thinks that (except some deranged idiots around here).

    On a GPS satellite, the usual definition of the second applies. But in
    order for the SIGNALS from GPS satellites to be received on earth at the correct frequencies, the time-base on the satellite must tick about 4
    parts in 10^10 more slowly than a corresponding time-base on earth's
    geoid (mean sea level).

    Perhaps it may be easier to understand if it is compared to the Doppler
    effect of a train horn.

    Consider a train whose horn sounds at exactly 440 Hz (musical tone A4).

    What note did the train engineer and passengers hear the horn sound?
    Assume they had perfect pitch.

    Now the train is parked at a station and it sounds its horn. What note
    would a passenger on the platform (with perfect pitch) hear the train
    horn sound?

    Now the train approaches the station at 134.796 km/hr. What note do the passengers on the train sound? And...what note would the passenger on
    the platform hear the horn sound? He would hear it sound at 493.883 Hz,
    better known as "B" or B4. Why?

    Another train approaches at 134.796 km/hr. The passenger on the platform
    hears its horn at 440 Hz or A4. But the passengers aboard the train
    insist it sounds at 391.995 Hz, better known to musicians as G or G4.

    The signal from the GPS birds is much like this (frequency shifted but
    for a different reason), but its master frequency is set so that the
    signal is received at the correct frequency. Much like the second train.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon May 6 12:56:51 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 06.05.2024 o 01:59, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 04.05.2024 o 17:46, Tom Roberts pisze:

    On 5/1/24 12:06 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    sane people, as anyone can check at GPS, keep assuming the second
    to be  9 192 631 770 on Earth,

    This is not an "assumption", this is the definition of the second -- that's what these words mean.

    1) Poincare has said that axiooms are "definitions
    in disguise", or something like that. I would say
    it differently - anyway, definitions are assumed.

    SOme are, but not all.

    Because a DK idiot is believing and asserting?

    Because a dishonest fool says the opposite?

    See, Harrie - definitions are not physical
    entities,

    I said just the opposite, but Wozzie is too stupid to understand.

    your "authority" in the field is completely
    self-appointed.

    Looking for someone with a little authority? I have as little
    as anyone.

    And definitions are really a special form of axioms.

    I disagree. Axioms most often have their basis in observation
    of reality. Definitions may also, but Wozzie is pretending he
    is some sort of expert on definitions and axioms. He's not.

    Ready to discuss it, yes, but not with a DK idiot.

    I'm not interested in having a "discussion" with a liar like
    Wozzie.

    2)Could find a quoting where you admit that in the
    context of GPS the word means something else.

    The fact is that if one had an accurate 1 second

    The fact is that outside of your mad church nobody
    cares what your mad church is assuming accurate or
    not.

    And nobody cares about Wozzies's stupid nonsensical diatribes.

    The fact is also that common sense was warning
    your idiot guru.

    Wozzie is a liar and a fool. He is also insane since he keeps
    repeating the same old stupid line.

    But you can keep fooling yourself insisting that
    GPS has inaccurate clocks, why not; at least
    you've (temporarily?) stopped to deny they're real.

    Wozzie doesn't know the difference between reality and his fantasies.

    per second clock
    aboard the GPS, it would tick at exactly 1 second per second, but
    it would not appear to from the ground.  In fact, the first bird
    up there had exactly that and it didn't tick at 1 second per second
    at the ground.  That's why they switched to the alternate timing.

    See: even such pathetic pieces of fanatic shit
    like you or Harrie can't lie 100% of time.

    See?  Wozzie lies ALL the time.

    On a GPS satellite, the usual definition of the second applies.

    No.

    Yes!

    No.

    YES!!!

    I could find a quoting in which even
    that piece of shit Roberts is admitting it.

    Wozzie says he can, but he's lying ... again.

    Common sense was warning your idiot guru, wasn't it?

    The idiots were the engineers that disbelieved relativity.

    Your ravings and spitting won't change anything,

    Telling the truth is "raving and spitting" in Wozzie's fantasy
    world.

    nobody sane is assuming that GPS clocks are inaccurate
    (because SO!!!) and nobody sane ever will be.

    Wozzie tells HALF the truth: the GPS clocks are accurate on
    earth, yes, but they are because they're not aboard the birds,
    nor are they on the moom, nor Mars, nor .... Wozzie is either
    too stupid to understand this or too dishonest to admit it.
    Either way, Wozzie is a fool and a valid "discussion" is not
    possible.

    I respond to Wozzie's posts only in the hope that it might
    save some other poor soul from the same fate.

    “Ninety-nine percent of the people in the world are fools and the
    rest of us are in great danger of contagion.” – Thornton Wilder

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 6 17:50:19 2024
    W dniu 06.05.2024 o 14:56, gharnagel pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 06.05.2024 o 01:59, gharnagel pisze:

    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 04.05.2024 o 17:46, Tom Roberts pisze:

    On 5/1/24 12:06 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    sane people, as anyone can check at GPS, keep assuming the
    second > > > > to be  9 192 631 770 on Earth,

    This is not an "assumption", this is the definition of the
    second --
    that's what these words mean.

    1) Poincare has said that axiooms are "definitions
    in disguise", or something like that. I would say
    it differently - anyway, definitions are assumed.
    SOme are, but not all.
    Because a DK idiot is believing and asserting?

    Because a dishonest fool says the opposite?

    Is that how you determine the truth of your claims,
    Harrie? By "who says the opposite" criterion?



    See, Harrie - definitions are not physical
    entities,

    I said just the opposite

    You said that they are physical entities,
    Harrie?


    , but Wozzie is too stupid to understand.

    your "authority" in the field is completely
    self-appointed.

    Looking for someone with a little authority?  I have as little
    as anyone.

    Or at least - as little as any other idiot
    from your church.

    And definitions are really a special form of axioms.

    I disagree.  Axioms most often have their basis in observation
    of reality.  Definitions may also, but Wozzie is pretending he
    is some sort of expert on definitions and axioms.  He's not.

    Ready to discuss it, yes, but not with a DK idiot.

    I'm not interested in having a "discussion" with a liar like
    Wozzie.

    Of coursed, you're only interested in barking
    at the enemies of your moronic church; that's
    what it raised and trained you for, Harrie.



    2)Could find a quoting where you admit that in the
    context of GPS the word means something else.
    The fact is that if one had an accurate 1 second

    The fact is that outside of your mad church nobody
    cares what your mad church is assuming accurate or
    not.

    And nobody cares about Wozzies's stupid nonsensical diatribes.

    The fact is also that common sense was warning
    your idiot guru.

    Wozzie is a liar and a fool.  He is also insane since he keeps
    repeating the same old stupid line.

    Your ravings and insults change nothing, outside
    of your mad church nobody cares what your mad
    church is assuming accurate or not.

    But you can keep fooling yourself insisting that
    GPS has inaccurate clocks, why not; at least
    you've (temporarily?) stopped to deny they're real.

    Wozzie doesn't know the difference between reality and his fantasies.

    per second clock
    aboard the GPS, it would tick at exactly 1 second per second, but
    it would not appear to from the ground.  In fact, the first bird
    up there had exactly that and it didn't tick at 1 second per second
    at the ground.  That's why they switched to the alternate timing.
    See: even such pathetic pieces of fanatic shit
    like you or Harrie can't lie 100% of time.
    See?  Wozzie lies ALL the time.
    On a GPS satellite, the usual definition of the second applies.

    No.
    Yes!

    No.

    YES!!!

    With so many exclaimation marks it simply has to
    be true, doesn't it, Harrie?

    I could find a quoting in which even
    that piece of shit Roberts is admitting it.

    Wozzie says he can, but he's lying ... again.

    Well, can't find it now, indeed, but google keeps
    the record. Somewhere.



    Common sense was warning your idiot guru, wasn't it?
    The idiots were the engineers that disbelieved relativity.
    Your ravings and spitting won't change anything,

    Telling the truth is "raving and spitting" in Wozzie's fantasy
    world.

    Oppositely, Raving and spitting is "telling the truth" in
    Harrtie's fantasies, but it won't help anyway.
    Nobody sane is assuming that GPS clocks are inaccurate
    (because SO!!!) and nobody sane ever will be.


    Wozzie tells HALF the truth:  the GPS clocks are accurate

    Nobody cares what your mad church assumes accurate or not,
    Harrie. Face it, poor trash.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon May 6 17:14:51 2024
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Nobody cares what your mad church assumes accurate or not,
    Harrie. Face it, poor trash.

    Wozzie believes that if he posts last, he wins the duel :-))
    He is such a tragic figure.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 6 19:34:56 2024
    W dniu 06.05.2024 o 19:14, gharnagel pisze:
    Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Nobody cares what your mad church assumes accurate or not,
    Harrie. Face it, poor trash.

    Wozzie believes that if he posts last, he wins the duel :-))
    He is such a tragic figure.

    I just keep repeating the truth against those absurd
    lies of relativistic church and its doggies, Harrie.

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