| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:00:46 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,681 |
On 9/15/2025 2:17 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not
affecting the real time - which is NOT a
physical entity, but a cultural one, and
remains non-local and bound to Earth and
Solar System.
My questions are:
1. Can you measure "the real time"?
if yes:
2. How do you measure "the real time"?
You're setting the clocks to indicate
TAI or UTC or something else, even your
dilating idiocy. You may call it a
measurement or not, doesn't matter. What
matters is that it's not any mystical
Song of Universe imagined by your delusional
religion, it's the outcome of what YOU want.
Den 15.09.2025 16:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/15/2025 2:17 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not
affecting the real time - which is NOT a
physical entity, but a cultural one, and
remains non-local and bound to Earth and
Solar System.
My questions are:
1. Can you measure "the real time"?
if yes:
2. How do you measure "the real time"?
You're setting the clocks to indicate
TAI or UTC or something else, even your
dilating idiocy. You may call it a
measurement or not, doesn't matter. What
matters is that it's not any mystical
Song of Universe imagined by your delusional
religion, it's the outcome of what YOU want.
Why don't you give a serious answer?
You said:
The real time is NOT a physical entity, but a cultural one.
That's why I asked:
1. Can you measure "the real time"?
Let's be concrete.
If you are travelling from A to B in your car,
is it then possible to measure the non physical entity
"the real time" the journey takes?
Yes or no, please.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 14:17:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 15.09.2025 11:48, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
You may announce a sheep to be a "proper shark",
but it won't affect the real shark.
Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not
affecting the real time - which is NOT a
physical entity, but a cultural one, and
remains non-local and bound to Earth and
Solar System.
May be ugly, but works; binding time to
an observer and local Cs radiation may be
beautiful and symmetrical, but doesn't
work.
Tanks for your very wise lecture about time.
But it is something I don't understand,
so can you please enlighten me?
My questions are:
1. Can you measure "the real time"?
if yes:
2. How do you measure "the real time"?
It is much much easier to measure imaginary time then it is to measure
real time since real time doesn't exist...
and numbers don't exist either.
That is WHY there is no equation for real-time.
All numbers are imaginary...i
Numbers don't exist.
Anybody know what the real time is now?
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 10:42:52 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 14:17:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 15.09.2025 11:48, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
You may announce a sheep to be a "proper shark",
but it won't affect the real shark.
Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not
affecting the real time - which is NOT a
physical entity, but a cultural one, and
remains non-local and bound to Earth and
Solar System.
May be ugly, but works; binding time to
an observer and local Cs radiation may be
beautiful and symmetrical, but doesn't
work.
Tanks for your very wise lecture about time.
But it is something I don't understand,
so can you please enlighten me?
My questions are:
1. Can you measure "the real time"?
if yes:
2. How do you measure "the real time"?
It is much much easier to measure imaginary time then it is to measure
real time since real time doesn't exist...
and numbers don't exist either.
That is WHY there is no equation for real-time.
All numbers are imaginary...i
Numbers don't exist.
Anybody know what the real time is now?
Does anybody got the real time now????
Den 15.09.2025 11:48, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
You may announce a sheep to be a "proper shark",
but it won't affect the real shark.
Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not
affecting the real time - which is NOT a
physical entity, but a cultural one, and
remains non-local and bound to Earth and
Solar System.
May be ugly, but works; binding time to
an observer and local Cs radiation may be
beautiful and symmetrical, but doesn't
work.
Tanks for your very wise lecture about time.
But it is something I don't understand,
so can you please enlighten me?
My questions are:
1. Can you measure "the real time"?
On 9/15/2025 10:10 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 15.09.2025 16:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/15/2025 2:17 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not
affecting the real time - which is NOT a
physical entity, but a cultural one, and
remains non-local and bound to Earth and
Solar System.
My questions are:
1. Can you measure "the real time"?
if yes:
2. How do you measure "the real time"?
You're setting the clocks to indicate
TAI or UTC or something else, even your
dilating idiocy. You may call it a
measurement or not, doesn't matter. What
matters is that it's not any mystical
Song of Universe imagined by your delusional
religion, it's the outcome of what YOU want.
Why don't you give a serious answer?
You said:
The real time is NOT a physical entity, but a cultural one.
That's why I asked:> 1. Can you measure "the real time"?
Let's be concrete.
If you are travelling from A to B in your car,
is it then possible to measure the non physical entity
"the real time" the journey takes?
Yes or no, please.
2. How do YOU really measure the time the journey takes?
Be concrete. What kind of instrument do you use?
There is no yes or no. "measure" is not a
strictly defined term (most terms aren't),
so whether-a you use it or-a not is a fuzzy
choice of yours. A number called "the real
time the journey takes" - for sure-a can
always be assigned to the journey, and not just
one. And my-a answer is-a very-a serious, like
always.
Den 15.09.2025 22:44, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/15/2025 10:10 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 15.09.2025 16:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:There is no yes or no. "measure" is not a
On 9/15/2025 2:17 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not
affecting the real time - which is NOT a
physical entity, but a cultural one, and
remains non-local and bound to Earth and
Solar System.
My questions are:
1. Can you measure "the real time"?
if yes:
2. How do you measure "the real time"?
You're setting the clocks to indicate
TAI or UTC or something else, even your
dilating idiocy. You may call it a
measurement or not, doesn't matter. What
matters is that it's not any mystical
Song of Universe imagined by your delusional
religion, it's the outcome of what YOU want.
Why don't you give a serious answer?
You said:
The real time is NOT a physical entity, but a cultural one.
That's why I asked:> 1. Can you measure "the real time"?
Let's be concrete.
If you are travelling from A to B in your car,
is it then possible to measure the non physical entity
"the real time" the journey takes?
Yes or no, please.
2. How do YOU really measure the time the journey takes?
Be concrete. What kind of instrument do you use?
strictly defined term (most terms aren't),
so whether-a you use it or-a not is a fuzzy
choice of yours. A number called "the real
time the journey takes" - for sure-a can
always be assigned to the journey, and not just
one. And my-a answer is-a very-a serious, like
always.
Why are you babbling nonsense in stead of giving an answer?
The questions are simple:
| 1. Can you measure "the real time"?
Of course even you can measure the time it takes to
travel from A to B in your car.
| 2. How do YOU really measure the time the journey takes?
|
| Be concrete. What kind of instrument do you use?
You will use a clock to measure the time it takes to
travel from A to B.
The clock could be your wristwatch, or the clock in your
smartphone. In either case will the clock be made to run
at the rate defined by SI.
The clock will run synchronously with UTC.
In Poland the clock will show UTC+2h.
--------------------
In physics and engineering "time" must be measurable,
and the instrument to measure time is called a clock.
So in physics and engineering "time" is what we measure
with clocks.
That make "time" local, "time" is what a local clock shows.
A clock on the geoid which is synchronous with UTC will
measure the orbital period of a GPS satellite to be
43082.045250 seconds.
But if the same clock is in a GPS satellite, it will measure
its orbital period to be 43082.045269 seconds. That's 19 ++s more.
This is not invented by somebody, it simply is how Nature works.
You can kick and scream as much as you want,
your wining can't change the laws of nature.
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 08:46:02 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 15.09.2025 11:48, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
You may announce a sheep to be a "proper shark",
but it won't affect the real shark.
Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not
affecting the real time - which is NOT a
physical entity, but a cultural one, and
remains non-local and bound to Earth and
Solar System.
May be ugly, but works; binding time to
an observer and local Cs radiation may be
beautiful and symmetrical, but doesn't
work.
Tanks for your very wise lecture about time.
But it is something I don't understand,
so can you please enlighten me?
My questions are:
1. Can you measure "the real time"?
The measure 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a beginning
and an end.
This is so because time is based on the idea of counting events of known
frequency.
And counting starts with 'one, two, three...'.
The end of this process is the time of the event in question.
Usually the used clock has some internal means to calculate user
friendly outputs, which we call 'current time'.
But mainly it is based on some sort of oscillator with known frequency
and some sort of 'computer', which generates the output.
Since this principle requires always a starting point, we negotiated
'universal' starting points on Earth.
Of those there are several in use on Earth, mainly the supposed birth of
Jesus Christ.
Other events are also possible, while also questionable.
Jesus for instance was most like born much earlier and was most likely
not named 'Jesus'.
As far as this is know, 'Jesus' is based on a Greek name, while the
actually meant person was (most likely) a Jew who spoke Aramaic, hence
certainly had no Greek name.
Similar with other 'starting points', especially the 'big bang', because
most likely 'big-bangs' are 'relative'.
TH
...
Okay, I'll explain it...
'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
"... 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a beginning..."
So, 'In the beginning, ...' contains the first interval, the event,
then the second interval, and so on till the end.
Now, Before the beginning..there were no intervals, yet you still had
time, but without intervals.
The Big Bang was the creation of intervals.
'In the beginning, ...
On 9/16/2025 10:47 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| 1. Can you measure "the real time"?
The answer can also be simple: that depends on what,
PRECISELY, you mean by "measure". Since you're
to stupid to know - another answer is impossible.
Of course even you can measure the time it takes to
travel from A to B in your car.
What I can do - may be considered as a
measurement or not.
In physics and engineering "time" must be measurable,Ever heard of "leap seconds", poor trash? Are they
and the instrument to measure time is called a clock.
So in physics and engineering "time" is what we measure
with clocks.
measurable?
When gregorian calendar was established - some
days vanished. Ever heard of it? Was it measurable?
Limit yourself to asserting in the name of your moronic
religion, we in-a engineering will keep fucking
you, your idiot gurus and your fellow idiots,
and especially your "time dilation" idiocy.
Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
My questions are:
1. Can you measure "the real time"?
The measure 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a beginning
and an end.
This is so because time is based on the idea of counting events of known frequency.
And counting starts with 'one, two, three...'.
The end of this process is the time of the event in question.
Usually the used clock has some internal means to calculate user
friendly outputs, which we call 'current time'.
But mainly it is based on some sort of oscillator with known frequency
and some sort of 'computer', which generates the output.
Since this principle requires always a starting point, we negotiated 'universal' starting points on Earth.
Of those there are several in use on Earth, mainly the supposed birth of Jesus Christ.
Other events are also possible, while also questionable.
Jesus for instance was most like born much earlier and was most likely
not named 'Jesus'.
As far as this is know, 'Jesus' is based on a Greek name, while the
actually meant person was (most likely) a Jew who spoke Aramaic, hence certainly had no Greek name.
Similar with other 'starting points', especially the 'big bang', because most likely 'big-bangs' are 'relative'.
Den 16.09.2025 12:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/16/2025 10:47 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| 1. Can you measure "the real time"?
The answer can also be simple: that depends on what,
PRECISELY, you mean by "measure". Since you're
to stupid to know - another answer is impossible.
Of course even you can measure the time it takes to
travel from A to B in your car.
What I can do - may be considered as a
measurement or not.
In physics and engineering "time" must be measurable,Ever heard of "leap seconds", poor trash? Are they
and the instrument to measure time is called a clock.
So in physics and engineering "time" is what we measure
with clocks.
measurable?
When gregorian calendar was established - some
days vanished. Ever heard of it? Was it measurable?
Limit yourself to asserting in the name of your moronic
religion, we in-a engineering will keep fucking
you, your idiot gurus and your fellow idiots,
and especially your "time dilation" idiocy.
Good answer!
You are obviously much smarter than Einstein.
He thought that time could be measured with clocks!
Le 17/09/2025 |a 22:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 10:05 PM, Python wrote:
Le 17/09/2025 |a 22:03, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 9:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 17/09/2025 |a 21:53, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 9:44 PM, Python wrote:
Le 17/09/2025 |a 21:41, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 9:14 PM, Python wrote:
Le 17/09/2025 |a 21:00, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 8:11 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2025 12:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/16/2025 10:47 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| 1. Can you measure "the real time"?
The answer can also be simple: that depends on what,
PRECISELY, you mean by "measure". Since you're
to stupid to know - another answer is impossible.
Of course even you can measure the time it takes to
travel from A to B in your car.
What I can do - may be considered as a
measurement or not.
In physics and engineering "time" must be measurable, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and the instrument to measure time is called a clock. >>>>>>>>>>>>> So in physics and engineering "time" is what we measure >>>>>>>>>>>>> with clocks.Ever heard of "leap seconds", poor trash? Are they
measurable?
When gregorian calendar was established - some
days vanished. Ever heard of it? Was it measurable?
Limit yourself to asserting in the name of your moronic >>>>>>>>>>>> religion, we in-a engineering will keep fucking
you, your idiot gurus and your fellow idiots,
and especially your "time dilation" idiocy.
Good answer!
You are obviously much smarter than Einstein.
I obviously am. No way-a a big achievement.
You obviously aren't. Moreover you're certainly dumber than 90% >>>>>>>>> of Humanity.
See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble [A.E.]
to be not even consistent,
You did nothing of that kind :-)
I've pointed directly 2 denying themself [usual nonsense]
Nope.
I did :-)>
I refuted your silly arguments.
You did nothing of that kind.
I did :-)
Nope.>
You're so silly that you cannot be convinced of anything, I know.
Anyway did you ever convince a single person that your "arguments"
were right?
Of course I did, poor stinker.
Who? Evidence?
On 9/17/2025 10:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 17/09/2025 |a 22:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 10:05 PM, Python wrote:
Le 17/09/2025 |a 22:03, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 9:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 17/09/2025 |a 21:53, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 9:44 PM, Python wrote:
Le 17/09/2025 |a 21:41, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 9:14 PM, Python wrote:
Le 17/09/2025 |a 21:00, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 8:11 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2025 12:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/16/2025 10:47 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| 1. Can you measure "the real time"?
The answer can also be simple: that depends on what, >>>>>>>>>>>>> PRECISELY, you mean by "measure". Since you're
to stupid to know - another answer is impossible.
Of course even you can measure the time it takes to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel from A to B in your car.
What I can do - may be considered as a
measurement or not.
In physics and engineering "time" must be measurable, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the instrument to measure time is called a clock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in physics and engineering "time" is what we measure >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with clocks.Ever heard of "leap seconds", poor trash? Are they
measurable?
When gregorian calendar was established - some
days vanished. Ever heard of it? Was it measurable?
Limit yourself to asserting in the name of your moronic >>>>>>>>>>>>> religion, we in-a engineering will keep fucking
you, your idiot gurus and your fellow idiots,
and especially your "time dilation" idiocy.
Good answer!
You are obviously much smarter than Einstein.
I obviously am. No way-a a big achievement.
You obviously aren't. Moreover you're certainly dumber than 90% >>>>>>>>>> of Humanity.
See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble [A.E.]
to be not even consistent,
You did nothing of that kind :-)
I've pointed directly 2 denying themself [usual nonsense]
Nope.
I did :-)>
I refuted your silly arguments.
You did nothing of that kind.
I did :-)
Nope.>
You're so silly that you cannot be convinced of anything, I know.
Anyway did you ever convince a single person that your "arguments"
were right?
Of course I did, poor stinker.
Who? Evidence?
You.
Le 18/09/2025 |a 07:05, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 10:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 17/09/2025 |a 22:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 10:05 PM, Python wrote:
Le 17/09/2025 |a 22:03, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 9:56 PM, Python wrote:
Le 17/09/2025 |a 21:53, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 9:44 PM, Python wrote:
Le 17/09/2025 |a 21:41, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 9:14 PM, Python wrote:
Le 17/09/2025 |a 21:00, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 8:11 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2025 12:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/16/2025 10:47 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| 1. Can you measure "the real time"?
The answer can also be simple: that depends on what, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRECISELY, you mean by "measure". Since you're
to stupid to know - another answer is impossible.
Of course even you can measure the time it takes to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel from A to B in your car.
What I can do - may be considered as a
measurement or not.
In physics and engineering "time" must be measurable, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the instrument to measure time is called a clock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in physics and engineering "time" is what we measure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with clocks.Ever heard of "leap seconds", poor trash? Are they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurable?
When gregorian calendar was established - some
days vanished. Ever heard of it? Was it measurable? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Limit yourself to asserting in the name of your moronic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion, we in-a engineering will keep fucking
you, your idiot gurus and your fellow idiots,
and especially your "time dilation" idiocy.
Good answer!
You are obviously much smarter than Einstein.
I obviously am. No way-a a big achievement.
You obviously aren't. Moreover you're certainly dumber than >>>>>>>>>>> 90% of Humanity.
See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble [A.E.]
to be not even consistent,
You did nothing of that kind :-)
I've pointed directly 2 denying themself [usual nonsense]
Nope.
I did :-)>
I refuted your silly arguments.
You did nothing of that kind.
I did :-)
Nope.>
You're so silly that you cannot be convinced of anything, I know.
Anyway did you ever convince a single person that your "arguments"
were right?
Of course I did, poor stinker.
Who? Evidence?
You.
The only things you've convinced me of, Maciej, is that you are un insufferable idiot and a despicable human being.
On 9/18/2025 10:33 AM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 07:05, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 10:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 17/09/2025 |a 22:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 10:05 PM, Python wrote:
Anyway did you ever convince a single person that your "arguments" >>>>>> were right?
Of course I did, poor stinker.
Who? Evidence?
You.
The only things you've convinced me of, Maciej, is that you are un
insufferable idiot and a despicable human being.
You're a fanatic piece of shit trained
to spit and slander the enemies of
your moronic religion. More right they
are - more hatred in your barking.
Simple.
On 9/17/2025 8:11 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:We leave it at that. :-D
You are obviously much smarter than Einstein.
I obviously am.
He thought that time could be measured with clocks!
Clocks have more important things to do
Den 18.09.2025 12:01, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:"arguments" were right?
On 9/18/2025 10:33 AM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 07:05, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 10:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 17/09/2025 |a 22:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 10:05 PM, Python wrote:
Anyway did you ever convince a single person that your
Of course I did, poor stinker.
Who? Evidence?
You.
The only things you've convinced me of, Maciej, is that you are un insufferable idiot and a despicable human being.
You're a fanatic piece of shit trained
to spit and slander the enemies of
your moronic religion. More right they
are - more hatred in your barking.
Simple.
Spitting and slandering in frustration because you know that
you have never convinced anybody of anything, Maciej? Efye
Den 18.09.2025 12:01, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/18/2025 10:33 AM, Python wrote:
Le 18/09/2025 |a 07:05, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 10:33 PM, Python wrote:
Le 17/09/2025 |a 22:27, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/17/2025 10:05 PM, Python wrote:
Anyway did you ever convince a single person that your
"arguments" were right?
Of course I did, poor stinker.
Who? Evidence?
You.
The only things you've convinced me of, Maciej, is that you are un
insufferable idiot and a despicable human being.
You're a fanatic piece of shit trained
to spit and slander the enemies of
your moronic religion. More right they
are - more hatred in your barking.
Simple.
Spitting and slandering in frustration because you know that
you have never convinced anybody of anything, Maciej? :-D
He thought that time could be measured with clocks!
Clocks have more important things to do than your childish "let's
explain" game.
You may accept this fact or not, it doesn't affect it, sorry, poor
trash.
And-a I've convinced both of you to many
things - you're not repeating many of
your errors anymore.
Den 18.09.2025 15:31, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
And-a I've convinced both of you to many
things - you're not repeating many of
your errors anymore.
Can you tell me which of my following
statements you have convinced me are wrong?
On 9/18/2025 10:14 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 18.09.2025 15:31, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
And-a I've convinced both of you to many
things - you're not repeating many of
your errors anymore.
Can you tell me which of my following
statements you have convinced me are wrong?
That GPS time is the same as TAI, poor trash.
And some others.
Den 18.09.2025 22:37, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/18/2025 10:14 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 18.09.2025 15:31, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
And-a I've convinced both of you to many
things - you're not repeating many of
your errors anymore.
Can you tell me which of my following
statements you have convinced me are wrong?
That GPS time is the same as TAI, poor trash.
And some others.
It is true that I said:
"GPS-time is the time sent to the receiver by the SV (space vehicle).
-aIt is the same as TAI."
The correct is:
-aGPS-time is _always_ the same as TAI - 19 seconds.
The important point is that GPS-time is _not_ updated
with leap seconds like UTC is.
On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The important point is that GPS-time is _not_ updated with leap seconds
like UTC is.
It is true that you mixed them all and insisted that it's UTC which is
ruling GPS for a long time. You never had any clue about any subject
you're babbling about, still I managed to correct some of your minor
errors. As for the major ones - you're a stubborn in your ignorance
idiot dying hard for them.
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The important point is that GPS-time is _not_ updated with leap seconds
like UTC is.
It is true that you mixed them all and insisted that it's UTC which is
ruling GPS for a long time. You never had any clue about any subject
you're babbling about, still I managed to correct some of your minor
errors. As for the major ones - you're a stubborn in your ignorance
idiot dying hard for them.
you can't avoid farts flowing through the universe, and therefore you will think clocks synchronized, but you are not, and will never know, you
stupid kike.
On 9/19/2025 4:42 PM, Stefhen Maslanka wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The important point is that GPS-time is _not_ updated with leap seconds >>>> like UTC is.
It is true that you mixed them all and insisted that it's UTC which is
ruling GPS for a long time. You never had any clue about any subject
you're babbling about, still I managed to correct some of your minor
errors. As for the major ones - you're a stubborn in your ignorance
idiot dying hard for them.
you can't avoid farts flowing through the universe, and therefore you will >> think clocks synchronized, but you are not, and will never know, you
stupid kike.
You will think I don't know, but I will, and you
just don't know. "Knowledge" is a complicated term,
it definitely can surprise you.
Le 19/09/2025 |a 20:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 4:42 PM, Stefhen Maslanka wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The important point is that GPS-time is _not_ updated with leap
seconds
like UTC is.
It is true that you mixed them all and insisted that it's UTC which is >>>> ruling GPS for a long time. You never had any clue about any subject
you're babbling about, still I managed to correct some of your minor
errors. As for the major ones-a - you're a stubborn in your ignorance
idiot-a dying hard for them.
you can't avoid farts flowing through the universe, and therefore you
will
think clocks synchronized, but you are not, and will never know, you
stupid kike.
You will think I don't know, but I will, and you
just don't know. "Knowledge" is a complicated term,
it definitely can surprise you.
This the best you can tonight Woz ?
Sheets and nurses will suffer...
On 9/19/2025 9:19 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 20:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 4:42 PM, Stefhen Maslanka wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The important point is that GPS-time is _not_ updated with leap
seconds
like UTC is.
It is true that you mixed them all and insisted that it's UTC which is >>>>> ruling GPS for a long time. You never had any clue about any subject >>>>> you're babbling about, still I managed to correct some of your minor >>>>> errors. As for the major ones-a - you're a stubborn in your ignorance >>>>> idiot-a dying hard for them.
you can't avoid farts flowing through the universe, and therefore you >>>> will
think clocks synchronized, but you are not, and will never know, you
stupid kike.
You will think I don't know, but I will, and you
just don't know. "Knowledge" is a complicated term,
it definitely can surprise you.
This the best you can tonight Woz ?
Best or not, I can this tonight, Pyt.
Sheets and nurses will suffer...
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or
the making of such a statement:
Or maybe
libel
noun [ C or U ]
uk /-ela+-.b+Ol/ us /-ela+-.b+Ol/
a piece of writing that contains bad and false things about a person:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 22:04, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 9:19 PM, Python wrote:
Le 19/09/2025 |a 20:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/19/2025 4:42 PM, Stefhen Maslanka wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The important point is that GPS-time is _not_ updated with leap >>>>>>> seconds
like UTC is.
It is true that you mixed them all and insisted that it's UTC which is >>>>>> ruling GPS for a long time. You never had any clue about any subject >>>>>> you're babbling about, still I managed to correct some of your minor >>>>>> errors. As for the major ones-a - you're a stubborn in your ignorance >>>>>> idiot-a dying hard for them.
you can't avoid farts flowing through the universe, and therefore you >>>>> will
think clocks synchronized, but you are not, and will never know, you >>>>> stupid kike.
You will think I don't know, but I will, and you
just don't know. "Knowledge" is a complicated term,
it definitely can surprise you.
This the best you can tonight Woz ?
Best or not, I can this tonight, Pyt.
Sheets and nurses will suffer...
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /-esl+a-En.d+Or/ us /-esl|an.d+U/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or
the making of such a statement:
Or maybe
libel
noun [ C or U ]
uk /-ela+-.b+Ol/ us /-ela+-.b+Ol/
a piece of writing that contains bad and false things about a person:
On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 18.09.2025 22:37, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/18/2025 10:14 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Can you tell me which of my following
statements you have convinced me are wrong?
That GPS time is the same as TAI, poor trash.
And some others.
It is true that you mixed them all and
insisted that it's UTC which is ruling
GPS for a long time.
You never had anyQuite.
clue about any subject you're babbling
about, still I managed to correct some
of your minor errors. As for the major
ones-a - you're a stubborn in your
ignorance idiot-a dying hard for them
On 8/21/2025 9:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
One simple question:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground, stay in sync with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
That's because the clocks are ruled by
common sense, not by some religious maniacs
mumbling about some delusional "laws of
nature" allegedly forcing these clocks
to run desynchronized.
| UTC is based on TAI, but since the rotation of the Earth | varies and
seems to slow down, leap seconds are inserted | as needed to (loosely)
keep UTC in sync with the solar mean | time at longitude 0.
| UTC is currently 27 seconds behind TAI.
Typo. UTC is currently 37 seconds behind TAI.
Den 19.09.2025 15:59, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 18.09.2025 22:37, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/18/2025 10:14 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Can you tell me which of my following
statements you have convinced me are wrong?
That GPS time is the same as TAI, poor trash.
And some others.
It is true that you mixed them all and
insisted that it's UTC which is ruling
GPS for a long time.
And the "them" I mixed were TAI, GPS-time and UTC, right?
25.08.2025, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.09.2025 08:46, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
My questions are:
1. Can you measure "the real time"?
The measure 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a
beginning and an end.
This is so because time is based on the idea of counting events of
known frequency.
And counting starts with 'one, two, three...'.
The end of this process is the time of the event in question.
Usually the used clock has some internal means to calculate user
friendly outputs, which we call 'current time'.
But mainly it is based on some sort of oscillator with known frequency
and some sort of 'computer', which generates the output.
Since this principle requires always a starting point, we negotiated
'universal' starting points on Earth.
Of those there are several in use on Earth, mainly the supposed birth
of Jesus Christ.
Other events are also possible, while also questionable.
Jesus for instance was most like born much earlier and was most likely
not named 'Jesus'.
As far as this is know, 'Jesus' is based on a Greek name, while the
actually meant person was (most likely) a Jew who spoke Aramaic, hence
certainly had no Greek name.
Similar with other 'starting points', especially the 'big bang',
because most likely 'big-bangs' are 'relative'.
Does this mean that time is measurable?
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| UTC is based on TAI, but since the rotation of the Earth | varies and seems to slow down, leap seconds are inserted | as needed to (loosely)
keep UTC in sync with the solar mean | time at longitude 0.
| UTC is currently 27 seconds behind TAI.
Typo. UTC is currently 37 seconds behind TAI.
the rate is essential, not that they are in synch and lags behind. They
are not in synch.
Den 19.09.2025 15:59, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 18.09.2025 22:37, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 9/18/2025 10:14 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Can you tell me which of my following
statements you have convinced me are wrong?
That GPS time is the same as TAI, poor trash.
And some others.
It is true that you mixed them all and
insisted that it's UTC which is ruling
GPS for a long time.
And the "them" I mixed were TAI, GPS-time and UTC, right?
25.08.2025, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| TAI, UTC and GPS-time all run at the same rate as a clock
| running according to the SI definition (SI-clock) placed
| on the geoid.
| They are all coordinate times in the non rotating Earth-centred
| frame of reference, which means that the coordinate time
| at any instant is the same everywhere in said frame of reference.
| That means that SI-clocks will not generally run synchronous
| with TAI, UTC or GPS-time.
|
| TAI (International Atomic Time) is the average of more than
| 450 Atomic clocks distributed around the world.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time
|
| UTC is based on TAI, but since the rotation of the Earth
| varies and seems to slow down, leap seconds are inserted
| as needed to (loosely) keep UTC in sync with the solar mean
| time at longitude 0.
| UTC is currently 27 seconds behind TAI.
Typo. UTC is currently 37 seconds behind TAI.
|
| GPS-time is the time sent to the receiver by the SV (space vehicle).
| It is the same as TAI. This is the time the GPS receiver use to
| calculation of the position.
GPS-time is the same as TAI-19 seconds.
Point being that GPS-time is derived from TAI, not from UTC.
| The SV will however also send the UTC to the receiver, because
| the receivers and GPS-watches will display the UTC, not
| the GPS-time.
|
| So yes, the UTC sent to the receiver from the GPS satellite
| is in sync with UTC.
|
| See the Interface Control Document:
| https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
|
| 20.3.3.5.1.6 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) Parameters
| page 120
|
The truth is that you still don't know what TAI, GPS-time
and UTC are. You don't even know what is a coordinate time in
the non rotating Earth-centred frame of reference.
To my statement:
"The TAI network, which is the base of UTC and the time
zones, could not work without atomic clocks with the inbuilt
SI-definition of second."
You responded:
"Sorry, that is not any fact, that's
a very impudent lie, expected of course from
a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they
surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if
they tried, they would soon loose the
synchronization - will you deny?"
(I suppose ISo should be SI) :-D
You never had anyQuite.
clue about any subject you're babbling
about, still I managed to correct some
of your minor errors. As for the major
ones - you're a stubborn in your
ignorance idiot dying hard for them
You claim that SR and GR are nonsense,
and the units defined by SI are never used,
All educated physicists know that SR and GR are
valid theories which never are falsified.
There is nothing wrong about being ignorant of physics,
most people are.
But sane people who know they are ignorant of physics,
will not claim that physicists are wrong.
You have demonstrated that you are ignorant of elementary
physics. You also don't know elementary logic, as demonstrated
in the following:
Den 21.08.2025 23:32, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 8/21/2025 9:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
One simple question:
A clock running according to the SI definition of second
will, when it is on the ground, stay in sync with the UTC.
But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to stay in sync with UTC.
Why is that?
That's because the clocks are ruled by
common sense, not by some religious maniacs
mumbling about some delusional "laws of
nature" allegedly forcing these clocks
to run desynchronized.
I will not offend the reader by explaining what is
the only logical conclusion.
So you see, Maciej, when you claim to be smarter than
Einstein, and that all experimental physicists are
"brainwashed religious maniacs", then you must take
the beatingyou get in this forum.
However, since it may be said to be unethical to pester
a person with your mental problems, I will not respond
to you any more.
Now you can keep shouting statements like:
"You may announce a sheep to be a 'proper shark',
but it won't affect the real shark.
Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not
affecting the real time - which is NOT a
physical entity, but a cultural one, and
remains non-local and bound to Earth and
Solar System."
or:
"It's not any experimental evidence, it's
just some assertions of a bunch of brainwashed
religious maniacs, unfortunately."
or:
"Yes, sure, when we only have a theory
of angels pushing - the movements of
planets confirms; when we only have a
theory of Zeus The Thunderer - thunders confirm;
that's the logic of a relativistic idiot."
or:
"Paul, poor trah, there is no evidence, there
is just an ignorant idiot asserting about
having unfailable evidence, spitting and
slandering."
or:
"Paul, poor trash, your idiot guru has predicted
deflection of space and spacetime, not deflection
of light. Do you understand the difference?
Of course, not. Poincare could explain it to you,
but you're too dumb for Poincare.
Anyway, even you and your fellow cultists are
not stupid enough to accept the insane schema
of your insane guru, and that's where "light
deflection" came from."
or:
"You may easily write a definition of a shark
as a grass eater - but it won't force real
sharks to eat grass. Sorry, trash. You may
try, of course, enforcing your absurd
newspeak on the rest of the world. But it's
not as easy as Orwell wrote, and your church
is too stupid to succeed anyway."
or:
"Rave and spit, trash, the facts won't go away.
The real measurement results are not matching
your beloved Shit and you're even stupid
enough to admit it occasionally."
or:
"No, TAI second is NOT your SI idiocy.
If they applied your idiocy they would
have no synchronization."
or:
"That's what SI definition was invented
for - enforcing fulfilling those moronic
prophecies about desynchronized (not
indicating t'=t) clocks. Of course -
The Shit had never any real chance for
that. It was obvious it's mad commands
will be ignored, common sense has been
warning."
... I will not ridicule you because I won't see it.
< *PLUNK* >
Have a nice life!
Typo. UTC is currently 37 seconds behind TAI.
the rate is essential, not that they are in synch and lags behind. They
are not in synch.
Real scientists, and astronomers, and 19th century sea captains, already
knew that master clocks should not be synchronised.
It suffices to note the differences.
Phileas Fogg knew it too.
In fact that is all that TAI is: a periodically updated table of
differences, and of rate divergencies,
and a weighted average of them all.
(maintained by BIPM)
That said, TAI -37s is in sync with UTC, exactly, and by definition,
(until it becomes -38s)
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 19.09.2025 15:59, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 18.09.2025 22:37, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 9/18/2025 10:14 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Can you tell me which of my following
statements you have convinced me are wrong?
That GPS time is the same as TAI, poor trash.
And some others.
It is true that you mixed them all and
insisted that it's UTC which is ruling
GPS for a long time.
And the "them" I mixed were TAI, GPS-time and UTC, right?
25.08.2025, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| TAI, UTC and GPS-time all run at the same rate as a clock
| running according to the SI definition (SI-clock) placed
| on the geoid.
| They are all coordinate times in the non rotating Earth-centred
| frame of reference, which means that the coordinate time
| at any instant is the same everywhere in said frame of reference.
| That means that SI-clocks will not generally run synchronous
| with TAI, UTC or GPS-time.
|
| TAI (International Atomic Time) is the average of more than
| 450 Atomic clocks distributed around the world.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time
|
| UTC is based on TAI, but since the rotation of the Earth
| varies and seems to slow down, leap seconds are inserted
| as needed to (loosely) keep UTC in sync with the solar mean
| time at longitude 0.
| UTC is currently 27 seconds behind TAI.
Typo. UTC is currently 37 seconds behind TAI.
|
| GPS-time is the time sent to the receiver by the SV (space vehicle).
| It is the same as TAI. This is the time the GPS receiver use to
| calculation of the position.
GPS-time is the same as TAI-19 seconds.
Point being that GPS-time is derived from TAI, not from UTC.
| The SV will however also send the UTC to the receiver, because
| the receivers and GPS-watches will display the UTC, not
| the GPS-time.
|
| So yes, the UTC sent to the receiver from the GPS satellite
| is in sync with UTC.
|
| See the Interface Control Document:
| https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
|
| 20.3.3.5.1.6 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) Parameters
| page 120
|
The truth is that you still don't know what TAI, GPS-time
and UTC are. You don't even know what is a coordinate time in
the non rotating Earth-centred frame of reference.
To my statement:
"The TAI network, which is the base of UTC and the time
zones, could not work without atomic clocks with the inbuilt
SI-definition of second."
You responded:
"Sorry, that is not any fact, that's
a very impudent lie, expected of course from
a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they
surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if
they tried, they would soon loose the
synchronization - will you deny?"
(I suppose ISo should be SI) :-D
You never had anyQuite.
clue about any subject you're babbling
about, still I managed to correct some
of your minor errors. As for the major
ones - you're a stubborn in your
ignorance idiot dying hard for them
You claim that SR and GR are nonsense,
and the units defined by SI are never used,
All educated physicists know that SR and GR are
valid theories which never are falsified.
There is nothing wrong about being ignorant of physics,
most people are.
But sane people who know they are ignorant of physics,
will not claim that physicists are wrong.
You have demonstrated that you are ignorant of elementary
physics. You also don't know elementary logic, as demonstrated
in the following:
Den 21.08.2025 23:32, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
> On 8/21/2025 9:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> One simple question:
>>
>> A clock running according to the SI definition of second
>> will, when it is on the ground, stay in sync with the UTC.
>>
>> But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
>> adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to stay in sync with UTC.
>>
>> Why is that?
>
> That's because the clocks are ruled by
> common sense, not by some religious maniacs
> mumbling about some delusional "laws of
> nature" allegedly forcing these clocks
> to run desynchronized.
I will not offend the reader by explaining what is
the only logical conclusion.
So you see, Maciej, when you claim to be smarter than
Einstein, and that all experimental physicists are
"brainwashed religious maniacs", then you must take
the beatingyou get in this forum.
However, since it may be said to be unethical to pester
a person with your mental problems, I will not respond
to you any more.
Now you can keep shouting statements like:
"You may announce a sheep to be a 'proper shark',
but it won't affect the real shark.
Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not
affecting the real time - which is NOT a
physical entity, but a cultural one, and
remains non-local and bound to Earth and
Solar System."
or:
"It's not any experimental evidence, it's
just some assertions of a bunch of brainwashed
religious maniacs, unfortunately."
or:
"Yes, sure, when we only have a theory
of angels pushing - the movements of
planets confirms; when we only have a
theory of Zeus The Thunderer - thunders confirm;
that's the logic of a relativistic idiot."
or:
"Paul, poor trah, there is no evidence, there
is just an ignorant idiot asserting about
having unfailable evidence, spitting and
slandering."
or:
"Paul, poor trash, your idiot guru has predicted
deflection of space and spacetime, not deflection
of light. Do you understand the difference?
Of course, not. Poincare could explain it to you,
but you're too dumb for Poincare.
Anyway, even you and your fellow cultists are
not stupid enough to accept the insane schema
of your insane guru, and that's where "light
deflection" came from."
or:
"You may easily write a definition of a shark
as a grass eater - but it won't force real
sharks to eat grass. Sorry, trash. You may
try, of course, enforcing your absurd
newspeak on the rest of the world. But it's
not as easy as Orwell wrote, and your church
is too stupid to succeed anyway."
or:
"Rave and spit, trash, the facts won't go away.
The real measurement results are not matching
your beloved Shit and you're even stupid
enough to admit it occasionally."
or:
"No, TAI second is NOT your SI idiocy.
If they applied your idiocy they would
have no synchronization."
or:
"That's what SI definition was invented
for - enforcing fulfilling those moronic
prophecies about desynchronized (not
indicating t'=t) clocks. Of course -
The Shit had never any real chance for
that. It was obvious it's mad commands
will be ignored, common sense has been
warning."
... I will not ridicule you because I won't see it.
< *PLUNK* >
Have a nice life!
I greatly admire your patience, for this long,
and your ability to suffer fools gladly.
I gave up on him months ago,
On 9/21/2025 12:52 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 19.09.2025 15:59, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 18.09.2025 22:37, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 9/18/2025 10:14 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Can you tell me which of my following
statements you have convinced me are wrong?
That GPS time is the same as TAI, poor trash.
And some others.
It is true that you mixed them all and
insisted that it's UTC which is ruling
GPS for a long time.
And the "them" I mixed were TAI, GPS-time and UTC, right?
25.08.2025, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| TAI, UTC and GPS-time all run at the same rate as a clock
| running according to the SI definition (SI-clock) placed
| on the geoid.
| They are all coordinate times in the non rotating Earth-centred
| frame of reference, which means that the coordinate time
| at any instant is the same everywhere in said frame of reference.
| That means that SI-clocks will not generally run synchronous
| with TAI, UTC or GPS-time.
|
| TAI (International Atomic Time) is the average of more than
| 450 Atomic clocks distributed around the world.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time
|
| UTC is based on TAI, but since the rotation of the Earth
| varies and seems to slow down, leap seconds are inserted
| as needed to (loosely) keep UTC in sync with the solar mean
| time at longitude 0.
| UTC is currently 27 seconds behind TAI.
Typo. UTC is currently 37 seconds behind TAI.
|
| GPS-time is the time sent to the receiver by the SV (space vehicle).
| It is the same as TAI. This is the time the GPS receiver use to
| calculation of the position.
GPS-time is the same as TAI-19 seconds.
Point being that GPS-time is derived from TAI, not from UTC.
| The SV will however also send the UTC to the receiver, because
| the receivers and GPS-watches will display the UTC, not
| the GPS-time.
|
| So yes, the UTC sent to the receiver from the GPS satellite
| is in sync with UTC.
|
| See the Interface Control Document:
| https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
|
| 20.3.3.5.1.6 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) Parameters
| page 120
|
The truth is that you still don't know what TAI, GPS-time
and UTC are. You don't even know what is a coordinate time in
the non rotating Earth-centred frame of reference.
To my statement:
"The TAI network, which is the base of UTC and the time
zones, could not work without atomic clocks with the inbuilt
SI-definition of second."
You responded:
"Sorry, that is not any fact, that's
a very impudent lie, expected of course from
a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they
surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if
they tried, they would soon loose the
synchronization - will you deny?"
(I suppose ISo should be SI) :-D
You never had anyQuite.
clue about any subject you're babbling
about, still I managed to correct some
of your minor errors. As for the major
ones - you're a stubborn in your
ignorance idiot dying hard for them
You claim that SR and GR are nonsense,
and the units defined by SI are never used,
All educated physicists know that SR and GR are
valid theories which never are falsified.
There is nothing wrong about being ignorant of physics,
most people are.
But sane people who know they are ignorant of physics,
will not claim that physicists are wrong.
You have demonstrated that you are ignorant of elementary
physics. You also don't know elementary logic, as demonstrated
in the following:
Den 21.08.2025 23:32, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
> On 8/21/2025 9:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> One simple question:
>>
>> A clock running according to the SI definition of second
>> will, when it is on the ground, stay in sync with the UTC.
>>
>> But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
>> adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to stay in sync with UTC.
>>
>> Why is that?
>
> That's because the clocks are ruled by
> common sense, not by some religious maniacs
> mumbling about some delusional "laws of
> nature" allegedly forcing these clocks
> to run desynchronized.
I will not offend the reader by explaining what is
the only logical conclusion.
So you see, Maciej, when you claim to be smarter than
Einstein, and that all experimental physicists are
"brainwashed religious maniacs", then you must take
the beatingyou get in this forum.
However, since it may be said to be unethical to pester
a person with your mental problems, I will not respond
to you any more.
Now you can keep shouting statements like:
"You may announce a sheep to be a 'proper shark',
but it won't affect the real shark.
Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not
affecting the real time - which is NOT a
physical entity, but a cultural one, and
remains non-local and bound to Earth and
Solar System."
or:
"It's not any experimental evidence, it's
just some assertions of a bunch of brainwashed
religious maniacs, unfortunately."
or:
"Yes, sure, when we only have a theory
of angels pushing - the movements of
planets confirms; when we only have a
theory of Zeus The Thunderer - thunders confirm;
that's the logic of a relativistic idiot."
or:
"Paul, poor trah, there is no evidence, there
is just an ignorant idiot asserting about
having unfailable evidence, spitting and
slandering."
or:
"Paul, poor trash, your idiot guru has predicted
deflection of space and spacetime, not deflection
of light. Do you understand the difference?
Of course, not. Poincare could explain it to you,
but you're too dumb for Poincare.
Anyway, even you and your fellow cultists are
not stupid enough to accept the insane schema
of your insane guru, and that's where "light
deflection" came from."
or:
"You may easily write a definition of a shark
as a grass eater - but it won't force real
sharks to eat grass. Sorry, trash. You may
try, of course, enforcing your absurd
newspeak on the rest of the world. But it's
not as easy as Orwell wrote, and your church
is too stupid to succeed anyway."
or:
"Rave and spit, trash, the facts won't go away.
The real measurement results are not matching
your beloved Shit and you're even stupid
enough to admit it occasionally."
or:
"No, TAI second is NOT your SI idiocy.
If they applied your idiocy they would
have no synchronization."
or:
"That's what SI definition was invented
for - enforcing fulfilling those moronic
prophecies about desynchronized (not
indicating t'=t) clocks. Of course -
The Shit had never any real chance for
that. It was obvious it's mad commands
will be ignored, common sense has been
warning."
... I will not ridicule you because I won't see it.
< *PLUNK* >
Have a nice life!
I greatly admire your patience, for this long,
and your ability to suffer fools gladly.
I gave up on him months ago,
You've run crying,
and Paul soon will too.
poor trash
Le 21/09/2025 |a 15:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/21/2025 12:52 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 19.09.2025 15:59, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 9/19/2025 3:40 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 18.09.2025 22:37, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 9/18/2025 10:14 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Can you tell me which of my following
statements you have convinced me are wrong?
That GPS time is the same as TAI, poor trash.
And some others.
It is true that you mixed them all and
insisted that it's UTC which is ruling
GPS for a long time.
And the "them" I mixed were TAI, GPS-time and UTC, right?
25.08.2025, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| TAI, UTC and GPS-time all run at the same rate as a clock
| running according to the SI definition (SI-clock) placed
| on the geoid.
| They are all coordinate times in the non rotating Earth-centred
| frame of reference, which means that the coordinate time
| at any instant is the same everywhere in said frame of reference.
| That means that SI-clocks will not generally run synchronous
| with TAI, UTC or GPS-time.
|
| TAI (International Atomic Time) is the average of more than
| 450 Atomic clocks distributed around the world.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time
|
| UTC is based on TAI, but since the rotation of the Earth
| varies and seems to slow down, leap seconds are inserted
| as needed to (loosely) keep UTC in sync with the solar mean
| time at longitude 0.
| UTC is currently 27 seconds behind TAI.
Typo. UTC is currently 37 seconds behind TAI.
|
| GPS-time is the time sent to the receiver by the SV (space vehicle). >>>> | It is the same as TAI. This is the time the GPS receiver use to
| calculation of the position.
GPS-time is the same as TAI-19 seconds.
Point being that GPS-time is derived from TAI, not from UTC.
| The SV will however also send the UTC to the receiver, because
| the receivers and GPS-watches will display the UTC, not
| the GPS-time.
|
| So yes, the UTC sent to the receiver from the GPS satellite
| is in sync with UTC.
|
| See the Interface Control Document:
| https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
|
| 20.3.3.5.1.6 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) Parameters
| page 120
|
The truth is that you still don't know what TAI, GPS-time
and UTC are. You don't even know what is a coordinate time in
the non rotating Earth-centred frame of reference.
To my statement:
"The TAI network, which is the base of UTC and the time
-a-a zones, could not work without atomic clocks with the inbuilt
-a-a SI-definition of second."
You responded:
"Sorry,-a that is not any fact, that's
-a-a a very impudent lie, expected of course from
-a-a a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they
-a-a surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if
-a-a they tried, they would soon loose the
-a-a synchronization - will-a you deny?"
(I suppose ISo should be SI) :-D
You never had anyQuite.
clue about any subject you're babbling
about, still I managed to correct some
of your minor errors. As for the major
ones-a - you're a stubborn in your
ignorance idiot-a dying hard for them
You claim that SR and GR are nonsense,
and the units defined by SI are never used,
All educated physicists know that SR and GR are
valid theories which never are falsified.
There is nothing wrong about being ignorant of physics,
most people are.
But sane people who know they are ignorant of physics,
will not claim that physicists are wrong.
You have demonstrated that you are ignorant of elementary
physics. You also don't know elementary logic, as demonstrated
in the following:
Den 21.08.2025 23:32, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
-a > On 8/21/2025 9:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
-a >>
-a >> One simple question:
-a >>
-a >> A clock running according to the SI definition of second
-a >> will, when it is on the ground, stay in sync with the UTC.
-a >>
-a >> But when the same clock is in GPS orbit, it has to be
-a >> adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) to stay in sync with UTC.
-a >>
-a >> Why is that?
-a >
-a > That's because the clocks are ruled by
-a > common sense, not by some religious maniacs
-a > mumbling about some delusional "laws of
-a > nature" allegedly forcing these clocks
-a > to run desynchronized.
I will not offend the reader by explaining what is
the only logical conclusion.
So you see, Maciej, when you claim to be smarter than
Einstein, and that all experimental physicists are
"brainwashed religious maniacs", then you must take
-a-a the beatingyou get in this forum.
However, since it may be said to be unethical to pester
a person with your mental problems, I will not respond
to you any more.
Now you can keep shouting statements like:
"You may announce a sheep to be a 'proper shark',
-a-a but it won't affect the real shark.
-a-a Samely, your "proper time" bullshit is not
-a-a affecting the real time - which is NOT a
-a-a physical entity, but a cultural one, and
-a-a remains non-local and bound to Earth and
-a-a Solar System."
or:
"It's not any experimental evidence, it's
-a-a just some assertions of a bunch of brainwashed
-a-a religious maniacs, unfortunately."
or:
"Yes, sure, when we only have a theory
-a-a of angels pushing - the movements of
-a-a planets confirms; when we only have a
-a-a theory of Zeus The Thunderer - thunders confirm;
-a-a that's the logic of a relativistic idiot."
or:
"Paul, poor trah, there is no evidence, there
-a-a is just an ignorant idiot asserting about
-a-a having unfailable evidence,-a spitting and
-a-a slandering."
or:
"Paul, poor trash, your idiot guru has predicted
-a-a deflection of space and spacetime, not deflection
-a-a of light. Do you understand the difference?
-a-a Of course, not. Poincare could explain it to you,
-a-a but you're too dumb for Poincare.
-a-a Anyway, even you and your fellow cultists are
-a-a not stupid enough to accept the insane schema
-a-a of your insane guru, and that's where "light
-a-a deflection" came from."
or:
"You may easily write a definition of a shark
-a-a as a grass eater - but it won't force-a real
-a-a sharks to eat grass. Sorry,-a trash. You may
-a-a try, of course, enforcing your absurd
-a-a newspeak on the rest of the world. But it's
-a-a not as easy as Orwell wrote, and your church
-a-a is too stupid to succeed anyway."
or:
"Rave and spit, trash, the facts won't go away.
-a-a The real measurement results are not matching
-a-a your beloved Shit and you're even stupid
-a-a enough to admit it occasionally."
or:
"No, TAI second is NOT your SI idiocy.
-a-a If they applied your idiocy they would
-a-a have no synchronization."
or:
"That's what-a SI definition was invented
-a-a for - enforcing fulfilling those moronic
-a-a prophecies about desynchronized (not
-a-a indicating t'=t) clocks. Of course -
-a-a The Shit had never any real chance for
-a-a that. It was obvious it's mad commands
-a-a will be ignored, common sense has been
-a-a warning."
... I will not ridicule you because I won't see it.
< *PLUNK* >
Have a nice life!
I greatly admire your patience, for this long,
and your ability to suffer fools gladly.
I gave up on him months ago,
You've run crying,
and Paul soon will too.
Delusion is too weak of a word.
poor trash
Nice signature!
Am Mittwoch000017, 17.09.2025 um 20:26 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 16.09.2025 08:46, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
My questions are:
1. Can you measure "the real time"?
The measure 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a
beginning and an end.
This is so because time is based on the idea of counting events of
known frequency.
And counting starts with 'one, two, three...'.
The end of this process is the time of the event in question.
Usually the used clock has some internal means to calculate user
friendly outputs, which we call 'current time'.
But mainly it is based on some sort of oscillator with known
frequency and some sort of 'computer', which generates the output.
Since this principle requires always a starting point, we negotiated
'universal' starting points on Earth.
Of those there are several in use on Earth, mainly the supposed birth
of Jesus Christ.
Other events are also possible, while also questionable.
Jesus for instance was most like born much earlier and was most
likely not named 'Jesus'.
As far as this is know, 'Jesus' is based on a Greek name, while the
actually meant person was (most likely) a Jew who spoke Aramaic,
hence certainly had no Greek name.
Similar with other 'starting points', especially the 'big bang',
because most likely 'big-bangs' are 'relative'.
Does this mean that time is measurable?
That depends on what you understand under 'time'.
Many people think about time as being provided by a 'universal calendarHave you never used your wristwatch to measure
with a huge clock'.
But that wouldn't be measurable, because time does not flow this way.
Iow: there ain't no such thing as 'absolute time', which you could eventually measure.
You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and theto run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that
local frequency of its units.
As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if
nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used
As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home planet,
even if that isn't perfectly stable.
TH
Den 21.09.2025 10:42, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Mittwoch000017, 17.09.2025 um 20:26 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:Have you never used your wristwatch to measure
Den 16.09.2025 08:46, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
My questions are:
1. Can you measure "the real time"?
The measure 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a
beginning and an end.
This is so because time is based on the idea of counting events of
known frequency.
And counting starts with 'one, two, three...'.
The end of this process is the time of the event in question.
Usually the used clock has some internal means to calculate user
friendly outputs, which we call 'current time'.
But mainly it is based on some sort of oscillator with known
frequency and some sort of 'computer', which generates the output.
Since this principle requires always a starting point, we negotiated
'universal' starting points on Earth.
Of those there are several in use on Earth, mainly the supposed
birth of Jesus Christ.
Other events are also possible, while also questionable.
Jesus for instance was most like born much earlier and was most
likely not named 'Jesus'.
As far as this is know, 'Jesus' is based on a Greek name, while the
actually meant person was (most likely) a Jew who spoke Aramaic,
hence certainly had no Greek name.
Similar with other 'starting points', especially the 'big bang',
because most likely 'big-bangs' are 'relative'.
Does this mean that time is measurable?
That depends on what you understand under 'time'.
Many people think about time as being provided by a 'universal
calendar with a huge clock'.
But that wouldn't be measurable, because time does not flow this way.
Iow: there ain't no such thing as 'absolute time', which you could
eventually measure.
the 'time' between two events?
(Like 'leaving home' and 'arrive at destination'.)
Was that 'time' measurable, or ain't there any such thing
which you could eventually measure?
to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that
You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and the
local frequency of its units.
As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if
nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was
born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used
the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'?
As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home planet,
even if that isn't perfectly stable.
Never heard of the SI-definition of second?
Den 21.09.2025 10:42, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Mittwoch000017, 17.09.2025 um 20:26 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:Have you never used your wristwatch to measure
Den 16.09.2025 08:46, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
My questions are:
1. Can you measure "the real time"?
The measure 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a
beginning and an end.
This is so because time is based on the idea of counting events of
known frequency.
And counting starts with 'one, two, three...'.
The end of this process is the time of the event in question.
Usually the used clock has some internal means to calculate user
friendly outputs, which we call 'current time'.
But mainly it is based on some sort of oscillator with known
frequency and some sort of 'computer', which generates the output.
Since this principle requires always a starting point, we negotiated
'universal' starting points on Earth.
Of those there are several in use on Earth, mainly the supposed birth >>>> of Jesus Christ.
Other events are also possible, while also questionable.
Jesus for instance was most like born much earlier and was most
likely not named 'Jesus'.
As far as this is know, 'Jesus' is based on a Greek name, while the
actually meant person was (most likely) a Jew who spoke Aramaic,
hence certainly had no Greek name.
Similar with other 'starting points', especially the 'big bang',
because most likely 'big-bangs' are 'relative'.
Does this mean that time is measurable?
That depends on what you understand under 'time'.
Many people think about time as being provided by a 'universal calendar
with a huge clock'.
But that wouldn't be measurable, because time does not flow this way.
Iow: there ain't no such thing as 'absolute time', which you could
eventually measure.
the 'time' between two events?
(Like 'leaving home' and 'arrive at destination'.)
Was that 'time' measurable, or ain't there any such thing
which you could eventually measure?
to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that
You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and the
local frequency of its units.
As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if
nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was born.Could >> those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used
the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'?
As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home planet,
even if that isn't perfectly stable.
Never heard of the SI-definition of second?
BTW, on which planet are you living?
TH
It seems very weird.
Iow: there ain't no such thing as 'absolute time', which you couldHave you never used your wristwatch to measure the 'time' between two
eventually measure.
events?
(Like 'leaving home' and 'arrive at destination'.)
Was that 'time' measurable, or ain't there any such thing which you
could eventually measure?
On 9/25/2025 3:21 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 21.09.2025 10:42, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Mittwoch000017, 17.09.2025 um 20:26 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:Have you never used your wristwatch to measure
Den 16.09.2025 08:46, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
My questions are:
1. Can you measure "the real time"?
The measure 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a
beginning and an end.
This is so because time is based on the idea of counting events of
known frequency.
And counting starts with 'one, two, three...'.
The end of this process is the time of the event in question.
Usually the used clock has some internal means to calculate user
friendly outputs, which we call 'current time'.
But mainly it is based on some sort of oscillator with known
frequency and some sort of 'computer', which generates the output.
Since this principle requires always a starting point, we negotiated >>>>> 'universal' starting points on Earth.
Of those there are several in use on Earth, mainly the supposed
birth of Jesus Christ.
Other events are also possible, while also questionable.
Jesus for instance was most like born much earlier and was most
likely not named 'Jesus'.
As far as this is know, 'Jesus' is based on a Greek name, while the >>>>> actually meant person was (most likely) a Jew who spoke Aramaic,
hence certainly had no Greek name.
Similar with other 'starting points', especially the 'big bang',
because most likely 'big-bangs' are 'relative'.
Does this mean that time is measurable?
That depends on what you understand under 'time'.
Many people think about time as being provided by a 'universal
calendar with a huge clock'.
But that wouldn't be measurable, because time does not flow this way.
Iow: there ain't no such thing as 'absolute time', which you could
eventually measure.
the 'time' between two events?
(Like 'leaving home' and 'arrive at destination'.)
Was that 'time' measurable, or ain't there any such thing
which you could eventually measure?
to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that
You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and the
local frequency of its units.
As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if
nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was
born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used
the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'?
They're not even using clocks for that, poor trash.
A "stopwatch" is a similar device, but different
enough to get a different name.
When defining "time" the idiot you're worshipping
introduced "position of hands".
And that only
has sense when the start point is known.
Le 25/09/2025 |a 15:28, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/25/2025 3:21 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 21.09.2025 10:42, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Mittwoch000017, 17.09.2025 um 20:26 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:Have you never used your wristwatch to measure
Den 16.09.2025 08:46, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
My questions are:
1. Can you measure "the real time"?
The measure 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a
beginning and an end.
This is so because time is based on the idea of counting events of >>>>>> known frequency.
And counting starts with 'one, two, three...'.
The end of this process is the time of the event in question.
Usually the used clock has some internal means to calculate user
friendly outputs, which we call 'current time'.
But mainly it is based on some sort of oscillator with known
frequency and some sort of 'computer', which generates the output. >>>>>>
Since this principle requires always a starting point, we
negotiated 'universal' starting points on Earth.
Of those there are several in use on Earth, mainly the supposed
birth of Jesus Christ.
Other events are also possible, while also questionable.
Jesus for instance was most like born much earlier and was most
likely not named 'Jesus'.
As far as this is know, 'Jesus' is based on a Greek name, while
the actually meant person was (most likely) a Jew who spoke
Aramaic, hence certainly had no Greek name.
Similar with other 'starting points', especially the 'big bang',
because most likely 'big-bangs' are 'relative'.
Does this mean that time is measurable?
That depends on what you understand under 'time'.
Many people think about time as being provided by a 'universal
calendar with a huge clock'.
But that wouldn't be measurable, because time does not flow this way.
Iow: there ain't no such thing as 'absolute time', which you could
eventually measure.
the 'time' between two events?
(Like 'leaving home' and 'arrive at destination'.)
Was that 'time' measurable, or ain't there any such thing
which you could eventually measure?
to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that
You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and
the local frequency of its units.
As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if
nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was
born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used
the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'?
They're not even using clocks for that, poor trash.
A "stopwatch" is a similar device, but different
enough to get a different name.
When defining "time" the idiot you're worshipping
introduced "position of hands".
An inability to spot a metaphor is a sign of mental illness.
And that only
has sense when the start point is known.
What do you mean by "start point" ? If it is the event "the clock marks
Den 21.09.2025 10:42, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Mittwoch000017, 17.09.2025 um 20:26 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:Have you never used your wristwatch to measure
Den 16.09.2025 08:46, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
My questions are:
1. Can you measure "the real time"?
The measure 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a
beginning and an end.
This is so because time is based on the idea of counting events of
known frequency.
And counting starts with 'one, two, three...'.
The end of this process is the time of the event in question.
Usually the used clock has some internal means to calculate user
friendly outputs, which we call 'current time'.
But mainly it is based on some sort of oscillator with known
frequency and some sort of 'computer', which generates the output.
Since this principle requires always a starting point, we negotiated
'universal' starting points on Earth.
Of those there are several in use on Earth, mainly the supposed
birth of Jesus Christ.
Other events are also possible, while also questionable.
Jesus for instance was most like born much earlier and was most
likely not named 'Jesus'.
As far as this is know, 'Jesus' is based on a Greek name, while the
actually meant person was (most likely) a Jew who spoke Aramaic,
hence certainly had no Greek name.
Similar with other 'starting points', especially the 'big bang',
because most likely 'big-bangs' are 'relative'.
Does this mean that time is measurable?
That depends on what you understand under 'time'.
Many people think about time as being provided by a 'universal
calendar with a huge clock'.
But that wouldn't be measurable, because time does not flow this way.
Iow: there ain't no such thing as 'absolute time', which you could
eventually measure.
the 'time' between two events?
(Like 'leaving home' and 'arrive at destination'.)
Was that 'time' measurable, or ain't there any such thing
which you could eventually measure?
You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and theto run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that
local frequency of its units.
As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if
nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was
born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used
the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'?
As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home planet,
even if that isn't perfectly stable.
Never heard of the SI-definition of second?
BTW, on which planet are you living?
TH
It seems very weird.
Growing Earth, he actually believe that also Efye
You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) andto run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that
the local frequency of its units.
As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if
nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was
born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used
the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'?
They're not even using clocks for that, poor trash.
A "stopwatch" is a similar device, but different
enough to get a different name.
When defining "time" the idiot you're worshipping
introduced "position of hands".
An inability to spot a metaphor is a sign of mental illness.
And that only
has sense when the start point is known.
What do you mean by "start point" ? If it is the event "the clock marks
t = 0" this is definitely something Einstein-Poincar|- synchronization
leads to determine. It does not play any specific role btw. 0 is a clock value as any other :-)
Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python:
...
You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and the >>>> local frequency of its units.to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that
As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if
nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was
born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used
the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'?
As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home planet,
even if that isn't perfectly stable.
Never heard of the SI-definition of second?
BTW, on which planet are you living?
TH
It seems very weird.
Growing Earth, he actually believe that also Efye
I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons of evidence, that Earth does in fact grows.
Le 26/09/2025 |a 08:49, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python:
...
You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) andto run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that
the local frequency of its units.
As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if >>>>> nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was
born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used
the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'?
As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home
planet, even if that isn't perfectly stable.
Never heard of the SI-definition of second?
BTW, on which planet are you living?
TH
It seems very weird.
Growing Earth, he actually believe that also Efye
I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons of
evidence, that Earth does in fact grows.
What you call "evidence" is what sane people call delusions.
On 9/26/2025 9:26 AM, Python wrote:
Le 26/09/2025 |a 08:49, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python:
...
You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and >>>>>> the local frequency of its units.to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that
As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if >>>>>> nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was
born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used
the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'?
As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home
planet, even if that isn't perfectly stable.
Never heard of the SI-definition of second?
BTW, on which planet are you living?
TH
It seems very weird.
Growing Earth, he actually believe that also Efye
I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons of
evidence, that Earth does in fact grows.
What you call "evidence" is what sane people call delusions.
That's right, poor stinker. A physicist
or a wannabe physicist - the "logic" is
similar.
Le 26/09/2025 |a 11:54, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/26/2025 9:26 AM, Python wrote:
Le 26/09/2025 |a 08:49, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python:
...
You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and >>>>>>> the local frequency of its units.to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that
As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even >>>>>>> if nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person >>>>>>> was born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used
the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'?
As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home
planet, even if that isn't perfectly stable.
Never heard of the SI-definition of second?
BTW, on which planet are you living?
TH
It seems very weird.
Growing Earth, he actually believe that also Efye
I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons
of evidence, that Earth does in fact grows.
What you call "evidence" is what sane people call delusions.
That's right, poor stinker. A physicist
or a wannabe physicist - the "logic" is
similar.
You also believe in a growing Earth?
Or a flat Earth maybe EfyU ?
On 9/26/2025 4:28 PM, Python wrote:
Le 26/09/2025 |a 11:54, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/26/2025 9:26 AM, Python wrote:
Le 26/09/2025 |a 08:49, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python:
...
You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and >>>>>>>> the local frequency of its units.to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that
As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even >>>>>>>> if nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person >>>>>>>> was born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used
the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'?
As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home
planet, even if that isn't perfectly stable.
Never heard of the SI-definition of second?
BTW, on which planet are you living?
TH
It seems very weird.
Growing Earth, he actually believe that also Efye
I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons
of evidence, that Earth does in fact grows.
What you call "evidence" is what sane people call delusions.
That's right, poor stinker. A physicist
or a wannabe physicist - the "logic" is
similar.
You also believe in a growing Earth?
Or a flat Earth maybe EfyU ?
Neither. You're just slandering, like
always.
Le 26/09/2025 |a 19:59, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/26/2025 4:28 PM, Python wrote:
Le 26/09/2025 |a 11:54, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/26/2025 9:26 AM, Python wrote:
Le 26/09/2025 |a 08:49, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python:
...
You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) >>>>>>>>> and the local frequency of its units.to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that
As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', >>>>>>>>> even if nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that >>>>>>>>> person was born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt >>>>>>>>> used
the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'?
As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home >>>>>>>>> planet, even if that isn't perfectly stable.
Never heard of the SI-definition of second?
BTW, on which planet are you living?
TH
It seems very weird.
Growing Earth, he actually believe that also Efye
I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons >>>>>> of evidence, that Earth does in fact grows.
What you call "evidence" is what sane people call delusions.
That's right, poor stinker. A physicist
or a wannabe physicist - the "logic" is
similar.
You also believe in a growing Earth?
Or a flat Earth maybe EfyU ?
Neither. You're just slandering, like
always.
I'm not slandering, I'm asking.
Le 26/09/2025 a 19:59, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :
On 9/26/2025 4:28 PM, Python wrote:
Le 26/09/2025 a 11:54, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :
On 9/26/2025 9:26 AM, Python wrote:
Le 26/09/2025 a 08:49, Thomas Heger a ocrit :
Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python:
...
You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and >>>>>>>> the local frequency of its units.to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that
As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even >>>>>>>> if nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person >>>>>>>> was born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used
the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'?
As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home >>>>>>>> planet, even if that isn't perfectly stable.
Never heard of the SI-definition of second?
BTW, on which planet are you living?
TH
It seems very weird.
Growing Earth, he actually believe that also ?
I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons >>>>> of evidence, that Earth does in fact grows.
What you call "evidence" is what sane people call delusions.
That's right, poor stinker. A physicist
or a wannabe physicist - the "logic" is
similar.
You also believe in a growing Earth?
Or a flat Earth maybe ? ?
Neither. You're just slandering, like
always.
I'm not slandering, I'm asking.
Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 26/09/2025 |a 19:59, Maciej Wo?niak a |-crit :
On 9/26/2025 4:28 PM, Python wrote:
Le 26/09/2025 |a 11:54, Maciej Wo?niak a |-crit :
On 9/26/2025 9:26 AM, Python wrote:
Le 26/09/2025 |a 08:49, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python:
...
You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and >>>>>>>>>> the local frequency of its units.the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? >>>>>>>>>
As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even >>>>>>>>>> if nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person >>>>>>>>>> was born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used >>>>>>>>> to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that
As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home >>>>>>>>>> planet, even if that isn't perfectly stable.
Never heard of the SI-definition of second?
BTW, on which planet are you living?
TH
It seems very weird.
Growing Earth, he actually believe that also ?
I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons >>>>>>> of evidence, that Earth does in fact grows.
What you call "evidence" is what sane people call delusions.
That's right, poor stinker. A physicist
or a wannabe physicist - the "logic" is
similar.
You also believe in a growing Earth?
Or a flat Earth maybe ? ?
Neither. You're just slandering, like
always.
I'm not slandering, I'm asking.
With good reason, it seems to me.
On 9/26/2025 11:27 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 26/09/2025 |a 19:59, Maciej Wo?niak a |-crit :
On 9/26/2025 4:28 PM, Python wrote:
Le 26/09/2025 |a 11:54, Maciej Wo?niak a |-crit :
On 9/26/2025 9:26 AM, Python wrote:
Le 26/09/2025 |a 08:49, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python:
...
You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and >>>>>>>>>>> the local frequency of its units.the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? >>>>>>>>>>
As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even >>>>>>>>>>> if nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person >>>>>>>>>>> was born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used >>>>>>>>>> to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that
As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home >>>>>>>>>>> planet, even if that isn't perfectly stable.
Never heard of the SI-definition of second?
BTW, on which planet are you living?
TH
It seems very weird.
Growing Earth, he actually believe that also ?
I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons >>>>>>>> of evidence, that Earth does in fact grows.
What you call "evidence" is what sane people call delusions.
That's right, poor stinker. A physicist
or a wannabe physicist - the "logic" is
similar.
You also believe in a growing Earth?
Or a flat Earth maybe ? ?
Neither. You're just slandering, like
always.
I'm not slandering, I'm asking.
With good reason, it seems to me.
Slandering the enemies of a moronic
religion is always "with good reasons"
for the worshippers.
Best English equivalent for meaning:
'When it rains, it pours'.
Applied to this forum: Crazy ideas rarely happen in isolation. Someone
with one crazy idea usually turns out to be a complete nutter.
Le 26/09/2025 |a 23:31, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/26/2025 11:27 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 26/09/2025 |a 19:59, Maciej Wo?niak a |-crit :
On 9/26/2025 4:28 PM, Python wrote:
Le 26/09/2025 |a 11:54, Maciej Wo?niak a |-crit :
On 9/26/2025 9:26 AM, Python wrote:
Le 26/09/2025 |a 08:49, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python:
...
You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in >>>>>>>>>>>> time) andthe common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? >>>>>>>>>>>
the local frequency of its units.
As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', >>>>>>>>>>>> even
if nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person >>>>>>>>>>>> was born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used >>>>>>>>>>> to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that
As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home >>>>>>>>>>>> planet, even if that isn't perfectly stable.
Never heard of the SI-definition of second?
BTW, on which planet are you living?
TH
It seems very weird.
Growing Earth, he actually believe that also ?
I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons >>>>>>>>> of evidence, that Earth does in fact grows.
What you call "evidence" is what sane people call delusions.
That's right, poor stinker. A physicist
or a wannabe physicist - the "logic" is
similar.
You also believe in a growing Earth?
Or a flat Earth maybe ? ?
Neither. You're just slandering, like
always.
I'm not slandering, I'm asking.
With good reason, it seems to me.
Slandering the enemies of a moronic
religion is always "with good reasons"
for the worshippers.
It is not a religion.
It is not moronic, YOU are the moron.
There is no worshipers.
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Best English equivalent for meaning:
'When it rains, it pours'.
Applied to this forum: Crazy ideas rarely happen in isolation. Someone
with one crazy idea usually turns out to be a complete nutter.