From Newsgroup: sci.math

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Time is what clocks indicate.

If we synchronize clocks - they're indicating t'=t; that's what clock synchronization means.

it heavily depends on we. Not easy.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.math

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Oh, really?
Any example of clocks which are synchronized and are not indicating
t'=t?
Let me guess - no.

my point is, if a fart goes through the universe, that's enough to destroy
your synchronization, believe me and undrestand
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.math

Thomas Heger wrote:

Exact. This is why Einstein's synchronization checking formula is NOT
t'_A = t_B (this would mean what you spotted as wrong) but t'_A - t_B =
t_B - t_A.

But this equation would be wrong, if A and B move.

yet another stupid uneducated gearmon, wanting war with the good old
Russia; if you can't see the differentiation, that can't be moving,

then that stays for an instantaneous and simultaneous relationship.

if those are moving, it makes no difference, remark the terminology.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.math

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

And is that what that mumbling idiot you're worshipping has predicted?
That clocks will indicate not his local idiocy, but a time from a
preferred frame (which, according

but that's still locally, fucking idiot. As you don't go over there to
find out. These stupid polaks are amazing. myohhmy

what they do, change their name and move to shit america, calling themself americans. That's a stolen territory, fucking stoopid. Not a country, but
a stolen territory, now in the busyness of modifying history.

stinking lying bitches, you don't have them to stay around.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.math

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

This document defines The Special Theory of Relativity(SR):
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf SR is a mathematical
consistent theory.

SR is not a mathematical theory, it's a physical theory and it was not consistent - as it has been proven many times here. Not that a proof can affect a brainwashed religious maniac, of course.

kiss my ass, a physical not based on math is imbecility

you are uneducated and unskilled, idiot.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.math

Richard Hachel wrote:

Mais il applique une contraction des longueur et des distances de fa|oon particuli|?rement imb|-cile, et contre m|-me les transformations de Poincar|--Lorentz. Un objet qui se d|-place rapidement ne voit pas les distances devant lui se contracter. A 0.8c une distance de 100 m|?tres ne devient pas 60 m|?tres. Elle devient 300 m|?tres.

et rapidement de objet contraction une lui 300 de fa|oon ne ne
transformations contre qui 100 particuli|?rement d|-place pas Un m|?tres. devient contracter. se devant il m|?tres voit A distances se les et
distance une m|?tres. 60 imb|-cile, distances des m|-me pas les de devient Poincar|--Lorentz. applique 0.8c Elle Mais longueur des
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.math

Thomas Heger wrote:

(And as an enignieer I know a few things about technical procedures.)

If Einstein actually wanted to define simultineity he should have use a hypothetical signal, which connects without delay.

and this supposedly comes from an engineer, fucking idiot

the story goes the einstine was just making obvious, how close enough a simultaneity could be made, as to prove another point. You guys are
totally deranged.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.math

Python wrote:

Le 02/10/2025 |a 09:38, Thomas Heger a |-crit :

Nice to read. Are you progressing in the direction that your comments
are asinine?

No need to be rude!

Given your attitude you deserve it.

you are too stupid to deserve.. you only take
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.math

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 10/4/2025 7:52 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Indeed.
In physics 'time' must be measurable to have any meaning. The
instrument used for measuring 'time' is called a 'clock'.

Physics never understood what a clock is and was always mistaking it
with a stopwatch.

you are both fucking idiots. The former doesn't even know what physics is, thinking it's about measuring the immaterial.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.math

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Clock is a device providing [a less significant part of] a timestamp.
It's a stopwatch which is providing an interval, which is a measurement result.

idiot, it's NOT a measurement; measurement of what, the force of the
spring, the vibration of the piezoelectric quartz, or what??

you guys are fucking idiots in physics. No education whatsoever. No
skills, you stupid wannabe self-taught
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.math

On 10/5/2025 11:39 AM, Humb Szczepanski wrote:

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Clock is a device providing [a less significant part of] a timestamp.
It's a stopwatch which is providing an interval, which is a measurement
result.

idiot, it's NOT a measurement; measurement of what, the force of the
spring, the vibration of the piezoelectric quartz, or what??

Right, idiot, it is not. The world is not
spinning around childish games of physicists,
time is about timestamping. Measurements and
intervals have little significance.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.math

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 10/5/2025 11:39 AM, Humb Szczepanski wrote:

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Clock is a device providing [a less significant part of] a timestamp.
It's a stopwatch which is providing an interval, which is a
measurement result.

idiot, it's NOT a measurement; measurement of what, the force of the
spring, the vibration of the piezoelectric quartz, or what??

Right, idiot, it is not. The world is not spinning around childish games
of physicists, time is about timestamping. Measurements and intervals
have little significance.

idiot, timestamps are nonsense, not compared to another timestamp, which
in turn is nonsense, hence NOT a measurement.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.math

Python wrote:

Le 06/10/2025 |a 23:22, Python a |-crit :

Le 06/10/2025 |a 14:58, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

No, poor stinker. Neither (what a surprise) did sql interpreter.
Such delusions are a domain of ignorant idiots knowing nothing about
computer science (or anything else).

SELECT
now() - TIMESTAMP '0001-01-01 00:00:00' AS elapsed;

elapsed ------------------------------
2024 years 9 mons 5 days 09:33:42.123456

Poor idiot: I've been using relational databases from 2024 and
PostgreSQL from 1999.

Typo: Poor idiot: I've been using relational databases from 1994 and PostgreSQL since 1999.

nothing
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2