From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 3/24/26 23:40, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 3/25/2026 2:36 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

[...] The atomic clocks aboard GPS satellites (and perhaps other GNSS
satellites, too) have been modified before so that where they are
*then*, they count less time than an SI second so that for the receiver
on the geoid they count exactly in SI seconds, too -- because more
proper time elapses where they are than on the geoid:

A brainwashed religious maniac always know what
is proper and what is not. What a pity ...

Yes, yes, yes, a rephrasing of the Dawkinsesque
'all persons who believe in a god or a religion
in any matter is insane'.

Once upon a time there was Hobbes in his 'Leviathan'
how he talked about 'madness' (or anger) and used
arguments deriving from something like ontology
and logic to consider its properties (even like
'gods' such as Cicsro in 'On the Nature of the
Gods' a lot earlier. Then he also talked about
earlier theories involving 'demon possession'
for similar phenomena and then later theories.

The more you drift away from 'sanity' meaning
'using reason' and 'using reason consistently
throughout time' then enter into a new faith
based upon 'fear of being condemned by the
white priests' rather than anything resembling
reason. You don't have to think about it anymore,
and there really is nothing to say. Your
nee faith has however not set you free. You
have entered a new 'Demon Haunted World'.

There are 'memes' that will haunt you called
'mental diseases'. The DSM is of course thicker
than the Bible, therefore it is better than
the bible. You might or might not be 'DSMned',
but you have simply found a new host of demons.
You don't have to think about it. Faith means
you do not have to think. 'Anti-psychiatry',
ia just silly lunatics emitting 'word salad'.
You don't have to think about it anymore,
and so you won't think about it anymore.
The whole idea that 'psychology' could be
another 'religion' is deeply offensive.
But you don't think about it anymore so
you won't think about it anymore. There
really is nothing to say, and of course
it is the 'DSMned' people who are emitting
the 'word salad'. But if you do not think
about it anymore it may be you who are
not actually using reason anymore, and
you never really notice.




--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 3/25/2026 6:30 PM, x wrote:

On 3/24/26 23:40, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 3/25/2026 2:36 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

[...] The atomic clocks aboard GPS satellites (and perhaps other GNSS
satellites, too) have been modified before so that where they are
*then*, they count less time than an SI second so that for the receiver >>>> on the geoid they count exactly in SI seconds, too -- because more
proper time elapses where they are than on the geoid:

A brainwashed religious maniac always know what
is proper and what is not. What a pity ...

Yes, yes, yes, a rephrasing of the Dawkinsesque
'all persons who believe in a god or a religion
in any matter is insane'.

An exaggeration, and not any person who
believe in God is a religious maniac.

The problem with Thomas and his fellow idiots
is that while he has completely no knowledge
of what the words like "proper", "good",
"correct" are, how to deal with them or
how slippery they are - he still is
unable even to consider an option that
he is mistaken about them.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Montag000023, 23.03.2026 um 20:42 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

The 'nym-shifting troll quoted nonsense as "Jaymie Balashov":

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 3/23/2026 1:07 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

That's right - the clocks made for serious measurements are adjusted >>>>>> (calibrated) to count seconds of 1/86400 of a mean solar day.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, they do NOT, since the 1960 *redefinition* of the SI second.

Yes, they do -

So atomic clocks are not clocks "made for serious measurements"? :-D

and fuck the 1960 *redefinition* of SI second.

Before 1960, the SI second was defined as 1/86400 of a mean solar day, as
one can read (for free!) in the (publicly available!) SI Brochure:

<https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure>

That old definition has a very serious disadvantage:

as proponent of the so called 'Growing Earth theory', I would expect the
day to become longer over long periods of time.

Also the solar year would get longer and we had less days per year in
ancient times.


As far as I know the ancient egyptians had only 360 days per year, which
were also shorter than ours today.

That's why a different definition, which is not based upon planet Earth
would be a good idea.

But the question remains, whether or not other frequencies were effected
by the same mechanism, which makes the Earth grow, too.

The question is, if matter could 'age' or get 'transmutated' over time
or whether the emissions of a certain element are influenced by gravity
or the actual size of the Earth.

This is very hard to measure, because we would need something else,
which is known to be stable over time and independent from time itself,
thus provide countable events at an absolute and stable rate.

But the existance of any such phenomenon is hard to prove, because we
can't prove, that such a time piece measures 'absolute time'.

TH

...
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 3/26/2026 12:26 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Montag000023, 23.03.2026 um 20:42 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

The 'nym-shifting troll quoted nonsense as "Jaymie Balashov":

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 3/23/2026 1:07 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

That's right - the clocks made for serious measurements are adjusted >>>>>>> (calibrated) to count seconds of 1/86400 of a mean solar day.

-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, they do NOT, since the 1960 *redefinition* of the SI second.

Yes, they do -

So atomic clocks are not clocks "made for serious measurements"? :-D

and fuck the 1960 *redefinition* of SI second.

Before 1960, the SI second was defined as 1/86400 of a mean solar day, as
one can read (for free!) in the (publicly available!) SI Brochure:

<https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure>

That old definition has a very serious disadvantage:

The new definition has even more serious one,
however: if you apply it, you'll get "time
dilation", i.e. bloody mess.

Doesn't matter for the subject, of course.
In 1905 the definition (valid for the whole
physics, including The Shit) was as it was and
the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 3/26/2026 1:42 PM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 3/26/2026 12:26 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Montag000023, 23.03.2026 um 20:42 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

The 'nym-shifting troll quoted nonsense as "Jaymie Balashov":

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 3/23/2026 1:07 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

That's right - the clocks made for serious measurements are
adjusted
(calibrated) to count seconds of 1/86400 of a mean solar day.

-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, they do NOT, since the 1960 *redefinition* of the SI second.

Yes, they do -

So atomic clocks are not clocks "made for serious measurements"? :-D

and fuck the 1960 *redefinition* of SI second.

Before 1960, the SI second was defined as 1/86400 of a mean solar
day, as
one can read (for free!) in the (publicly available!) SI Brochure:

<https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure>

That old definition has a very serious disadvantage:

The new definition has even more serious one,
however: if you apply it, you'll get "time
dilation", i.e. bloody mess.

Doesn't matter for the subject, of course.
In 1905 the definition (valid for the whole
physics, including The Shit) was as it was and
the mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.

Sorry, I've mistaken the threads. The physics
of the idiot was still not consistent, but it is
out of topic here.



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Montag000023, 23.03.2026 um 20:42 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

Before 1960, the SI second was defined as 1/86400 of a mean solar day,
as one can read (for free!) in the (publicly available!) SI Brochure:

<https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure>

That old definition has a very serious disadvantage:

as proponent of the so called 'Growing Earth theory', I would expect the
day to become longer over long periods of time.

that pointedhead is an idiot. He wants to divide a day by an 1/86400
interval, aka t_1 - t_0, which yet he does not have. Completely uneducated idiot, spamming the usenet, proving himself a fool in many areas. You at
least know the history of Barlin.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

cretin Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day to last 86400
s,
and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.

That's right - the clocks made for serious measurements are adjusted
(calibrated) to count seconds of 1/86400 of a mean solar day.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, they do NOT, since the 1960 *redefinition* of the SI second. Even
the 1960 redefinition which was based on the tropical year instead, was

stop spamming, idiot

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

The 'nym-shifting troll demonstrated their utter ignorance as "Holden L|-n|irt":

Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Montag000023, 23.03.2026 um 20:42 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

Before 1960, the SI second was defined as 1/86400 of a mean solar day,
as one can read (for free!) in the (publicly available!) SI Brochure:

<https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure>

That old definition has a very serious disadvantage:

as proponent of the so called 'Growing Earth theory', I would expect the
day to become longer over long periods of time.

*facepalm*

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth>
|
| The expanding Earth or growing Earth was a hypothesis attempting to
| explain the position and relative movement of continents by increase in
| the volume of Earth. With the recognition of plate tectonics in 20th
| century, the idea has been abandoned[2][3][4][5][6] and considered a
| pseudoscience.[7]

[...] He wants to divide a day by an 1/86400

The troll is even confusing whom they are trolling :-D

The BIPM/CGPM decided that *in the 1940s* instead (as I already quoted from
the SI Brochure).

aka t_1 - t_0, which yet he does not have

It worked/works like this (a summary of what I quoted, with some historical details added):

1. You let a (pendulum) clock tick (regularly) such that it makes 86400
ticks per mean solar day. For that you have to first determine what
the average number of ticks per solar day (from noon today to noon the
next day) is, and then adjust the clock such that it makes the required
number of ticks on the longest and the shortest day. Then you define
(it was defined so first in 1862 by the BAAS, then still based on the
CGS system) that 1 s is the duration between two ticks of such a clock.

Why 86400? Because it was eventually agreed on that there are 60 seconds
per minute, 60 minutes per hour, and 24 hours per day. So 24 * 60 * 60 s
= 86400 s. [Ancient civilizations even used a definition of the second
(the time between two beats of their clocks, like water clocks) that was
different: 1/3600 of a day. The people in Europe, and those that
colonized the Americas, took the separation into multiples of 12 from the
Ancient Greeks. Probably the Sumerians/Akkadians were the first people
to realize that those numbers have many divisors which was of advantage.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagesimal>]

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second#History_of_definition>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seconds_pendulum#Defining_the_second>

2. When it was found that this is too imprecise because the rotation
period of Earth varies too much, and therefore does the mean solar day,
for 8 years (1960-1968) the duration of a tropical year was used as
basis of the definition of the (SI) second instead (ephemeris second).

A tropical year has elapsed e.g. when the same constellations can be seen
in the same place in the night sky again because Earth has completed one
revolution; or, as we are currently approaching, the duration from one
vernal equinox to the next one:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_year>

3. When it was found that this is still too imprecise because the orbit
of Earth also varies too much, but atomic clocks have a much better
precision, since 1968 certain characteristics of c(a)esium (Cs)-133-based
atomic clocks are used instead.

As previous measurements ought not be invalidated by new definitions for a unit, more precise definitions (of the second), on a different basis, had to and have to adhere to that (AISB). The current definition is (still):

,-<https://www.bipm.org/en/si-base-units/second>
|
| The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the
| fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency +o++_Cs, the unperturbed
| ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium-133 atom, to be
| 9 192 631 770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s^rCo1.

I could explain that in my own words; but why bother, as the BIPM explains
it just below that:

| This definition implies the exact relation +o++_Cs = 9 192 631 770 Hz.
| Inverting this relation gives an expression for the unit second in terms
| of the defining constant +o++_Cs:
|
| 1 Hz = +o++_Cs/(9 192 631 770)
|
| or
|
| 1 s = 9 192 631 770/+o++_Cs
|
| The effect of this definition is that the second is equal to the duration
| of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition
| between the two hyperfine levels of the unperturbed ground state of the
| ^{133}Cs atom.

Because we know the energy difference between the hyperfine levels (by calculation based on theory, and and measurement), we know (from quantum
theory and, I suppose, measurement as well) the frequency of the radiation
that is emitted or absorbed in that as the energy of a photon is given by

E = raA f = raA ++,

where h is the Planck constant and f (or ++; Greek letter small nu) is the frequency of the corresponding radiation. Then the frequency is

rea++_Cs = f = reaE/raA.

[I do not understand why they write rea++_Cs as it is a frequency,
not a difference of frequencies.]

If Cs-133 atoms pass through an electromagnetic cavity, and most of them are changed by the radiation, then the radiation has the right frequency and the clock "ticks" properly. Otherwise the frequency is adjusted until most of
the atoms are changed. The change (of spin) results in them behaving differently in a magnetic field, and that is how they can be counted. This
is how an Cs-133-based atomic clock works:

<https://www.nist.gov/atomic-clocks/how-do-atomic-clocks-work>

The video there under "Why do we use atoms to keep time?" is an excellent example of science communication. I daresay that if you have watched it
and still do not understand the basics of how an atomic clock works, then
there is no hope for you, and can just as well unsubscribe and disconnect -- you will be able to learn as much that way.

I usually referred to the site below before, which is also very good and
gives more details about how an atomic clock works; while the NIST site
above gives more details about how atomic clocks are used.

<https://www.timeanddate.com/time/how-do-atomic-clocks-work.html>

interval, aka t_1 - t_0, which yet he does not have.

The mean solar day had been determined, so had the length of the tropical year.

[...] You at least know the history of Barlin.

There is no "Barlin". The troll is so uneducated, they cannot even spell properly -- like "Einstine" gave lectures in "Barlin" in "Gearmon"
*facepalm* -- or are these all deliberate misspellings as part of their trolling, to produce irritation? We will probably never know.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 3/27/2026 3:17 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

3. When it was found that this is still too imprecise because the orbit
of Earth also varies too much, but atomic clocks have a much better
precision, since 1968 certain characteristics of c(a)esium (Cs)-133-based
atomic clocks are used instead.

No they are not, anyone can check GPS (or any other timekeeping
system), you may keep lying, waving your arms and spit at
anyone opposing - it won't help your ideological absurd.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

inbreed half russian german cretin Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

as proponent of the so called 'Growing Earth theory', I would expect
the day to become longer over long periods of time.

*facepalm*

stop spamming idiot, and fuck off. You are insignificant and stupid all
areas. I love Poland, a beautiful country, all seasons.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 27.03.2026 07:26, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 3/27/2026 3:17 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

3. When it was found that this is still too imprecise because the orbit
-a-a-a of Earth also varies too much, but atomic clocks have a much better >> -a-a-a precision, since 1968 certain characteristics of c(a)esium
(Cs)-133-based
-a-a-a atomic clocks are used instead.

No they are not, anyone can check GPS (or any other timekeeping
system), you may keep lying, waving your arms and spit at
anyone opposing - it won't help your ideological absurd.

!!!!! :-D
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 3/31/2026 8:29 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 27.03.2026 07:26, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 3/27/2026 3:17 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

3. When it was found that this is still too imprecise because the orbit
-a-a-a of Earth also varies too much, but atomic clocks have a much better >>> -a-a-a precision, since 1968 certain characteristics of c(a)esium
(Cs)-133-based
-a-a-a atomic clocks are used instead.

No they are not, anyone can check GPS (or any other timekeeping
system), you may keep lying, waving your arms and spit at
anyone opposing - it won't help your ideological absurd.

!!!!! :-D

Laughing won't help, and even such a disgusting
piece of lying shit as you are is sometimes
admitting.




--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 31/03/2026 |a 21:30, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 3/31/2026 8:29 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 27.03.2026 07:26, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 3/27/2026 3:17 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

3. When it was found that this is still too imprecise because the orbit >>>> -a-a-a of Earth also varies too much, but atomic clocks have a much better >>>> -a-a-a precision, since 1968 certain characteristics of c(a)esium
(Cs)-133-based
-a-a-a atomic clocks are used instead.

No they are not, anyone can check GPS (or any other timekeeping
system), you may keep lying, waving your arms and spit at
anyone opposing - it won't help your ideological absurd.

!!!!! :-D

Laughing won't help, and even such a disgusting
piece of lying shit as you are is sometimes
admitting.

Quite amazing that you don't realize that the one which is exposing
himself
as a "piece of lying shit" here, is you, Maciej.


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 3/31/2026 10:35 PM, Python wrote:

Le 31/03/2026 |a 21:30, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 3/31/2026 8:29 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 27.03.2026 07:26, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 3/27/2026 3:17 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

3. When it was found that this is still too imprecise because the
orbit
-a-a-a of Earth also varies too much, but atomic clocks have a much >>>>> better
-a-a-a precision, since 1968 certain characteristics of c(a)esium
(Cs)-133-based
-a-a-a atomic clocks are used instead.

No they are not, anyone can check GPS (or any other timekeeping
system), you may keep lying, waving your arms and spit at
anyone opposing - it won't help your ideological absurd.

!!!!! :-D

Laughing won't help, and even such a disgusting
piece of lying shit as you are is sometimes
admitting.

Quite amazing that you don't realize that the one which is exposing himself

Oh, that piece of shit is opening its muzzle
again, and again pretending it knows something.
Tell me, poor piece of shit, how is "select
now()::interval in SQL? I mean - in SQL, not
in sql_by_some_idiot.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 31.03.2026 21:30, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 3/31/2026 8:29 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 27.03.2026 07:26, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 3/27/2026 3:17 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

3. When it was found that this is still too imprecise because the orbit >>>> -a-a-a of Earth also varies too much, but atomic clocks have a much better >>>> -a-a-a precision, since 1968 certain characteristics of c(a)esium
(Cs)-133-based
-a-a-a atomic clocks are used instead.

No they are not, anyone can check GPS (or any other timekeeping
system), you may keep lying, waving your arms and spit at
anyone opposing - it won't help your ideological absurd.

!!!!! :-D

Laughing won't help,

Right.
You are beyond help, so laughing won't help.
I am laughing because you are involuntarily funny,
not because it will help you.

and even such a disgusting
piece of lying shit as you are is sometimes
admitting.

???
Can you please explain what this statement means?

What is it I am is sometimes admitting?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 4/1/2026 1:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 31.03.2026 21:30, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 3/31/2026 8:29 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 27.03.2026 07:26, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 3/27/2026 3:17 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

3. When it was found that this is still too imprecise because the
orbit
-a-a-a of Earth also varies too much, but atomic clocks have a much >>>>> better
-a-a-a precision, since 1968 certain characteristics of c(a)esium
(Cs)-133-based
-a-a-a atomic clocks are used instead.

No they are not, anyone can check GPS (or any other timekeeping
system), you may keep lying, waving your arms and spit at
anyone opposing - it won't help your ideological absurd.

!!!!! :-D

Laughing won't help,

Right.
You are beyond help, so laughing won't help.
I am laughing because you are involuntarily funny,
not because it will help you.

Rave and spit, poor trash. Your idiot gurus may
issue their insane commands and you may imagine
that no mortal worm could ever disobey them. You're
mistaken, nobody is treating those commands
seriously and nobody is going to obey them.
Even you're not really THAT stupid.

and even such a disgusting
piece of lying shit as you are is sometimes
admitting.

???
Can you please explain what this statement means?
What is it I am is sometimes admitting?

That GPS uses a second calibrated to be 1/86400
of a mean solar day, not to be your SI idiocy.







--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 01.04.2026 13:50, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 4/1/2026 1:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 31.03.2026 21:30, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

Laughing won't help,
and even such a disgusting
piece of lying shit as you are is sometimes
admitting.

???
Can you please explain what this statement means?
What is it I am is sometimes admitting?

That GPS uses a second calibrated to be 1/86400
of a mean solar day, not to be your SI idiocy.

So you claim that I sometimes am admitting that the frequency
of atomic clocks not are derived from the frequency of the hyperfine
transition of Cs as defined by SI, but are synchronised to count
86400 seconds per mean solar day.

It won't help, but I am laughing anyway! :-D

BTW, how do you calibrate a clock to a mean solar day?
Do you take the clock to the museum at Greenwich?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 4/1/2026 10:48 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 01.04.2026 13:50, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 4/1/2026 1:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 31.03.2026 21:30, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

Laughing won't help,
and even such a disgusting
piece of lying shit as you are is sometimes
admitting.

???
Can you please explain what this statement means?
What is it I am is sometimes admitting?

That GPS uses a second calibrated to be 1/86400
of a mean solar day, not to be your SI idiocy.

So you claim that I sometimes am admitting that the frequency
of atomic clocks not are derived from the frequency of the hyperfine transition of Cs as defined by SI, but are synchronised to count
86400 seconds per mean solar day.

Right. Even such a disgusting piece of lying
shit can't lie non stop, after all.


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 01.04.2026 13:50, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 4/1/2026 1:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 31.03.2026 21:30, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

Laughing won't help,
and even such a disgusting
piece of lying shit as you are is sometimes
admitting.

???
Can you please explain what this statement means?
What is it I am is sometimes admitting?

That GPS uses a second calibrated to be 1/86400
of a mean solar day, not to be your SI idiocy.

So you claim that I sometimes am admitting that the frequency
of atomic clocks not are derived from the frequency of the hyperfine transition of Cs as defined by SI, but are synchronised to count
86400 seconds per mean solar day.

If you would admit that, such an admission would be admitting something that
is *false*:

,-<https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf>
|
| 20.3.3.3.3.1 User Algorithm for SV Clock Correction
|
| [...]
| c = 2.99792458 x 10^8 meters/second = speed of light.

(Has nothing to do with what you suggested would be claimed, but shows: )

That is precisely the SI value, based on the SI second. If "second" would
mean any other unit than the SI second, which is based on the Cs-133
hyperfine transition radiation frequency, the value of c in that GPS
Interface Specification document would be different.

The term "mean solar day" appears in the GPS Interface Specification...
...*not even once*.

I can only emphasize once more: International Atomic Time (TAI) is NOT based
on the mean solar day. It is "the principal realisation of Terrestrial Time (with a fixed offset of epoch)." <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time>

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_Time>
|
| *Terrestrial Time (TT)* is a modern astronomical time standard defined by
| the International Astronomical Union, primarily for time-measurements of
| astronomical observations made from the surface of Earth. [...] In this
| role, TT continues Terrestrial Dynamical Time (TDT or TD),[b] which
| succeeded ephemeris time (ET). TT shares the original purpose for which ET
| was designed, to be free of the irregularities in the rotation of Earth.
| [...]
| TT is in effect a continuation of (but is more precisely uniform than)
| the former Ephemeris Time (ET).

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeris_time>
|
| In metrology, *ephemeris time (ET)* is time in association with any
| ephemeris (itinerary of the trajectory of an astronomical object). In
| practice it has been used more specifically to refer to:
|
| 1. a former standard astronomical time scale adopted in 1952 by the IAU,
| [1] and superseded during the 1970s.[2] This time scale was proposed in
| 1948, to overcome the disadvantages of irregularly fluctuating mean
| solar time. [...]
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 4/2/2026 3:05 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 01.04.2026 13:50, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 4/1/2026 1:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 31.03.2026 21:30, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

Laughing won't help,
and even such a disgusting
piece of lying shit as you are is sometimes
admitting.

???
Can you please explain what this statement means?
What is it I am is sometimes admitting?

That GPS uses a second calibrated to be 1/86400
of a mean solar day, not to be your SI idiocy.

So you claim that I sometimes am admitting that the frequency
of atomic clocks not are derived from the frequency of the hyperfine
transition of Cs as defined by SI, but are synchronised to count
86400 seconds per mean solar day.

If you would admit that, such an admission would be admitting something that is *false*:

,-<https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf>
|
| 20.3.3.3.3.1 User Algorithm for SV Clock Correction
|
| [...]
| c = 2.99792458 x 10^8 meters/second = speed of light.

(Has nothing to do with what you suggested would be claimed, but shows: )

That is precisely the SI value, based on the SI second.

Invoking your ideological absurd won't help, the real
second is pissing at it and is equivalent to
9 192 631 770 Cs radiation periods on Earth and
~9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite. Anyone can
check these numbers.


If "second" would

mean any other unit than the SI second, which is based on the Cs-133 hyperfine transition radiation frequency, the value of c in that GPS Interface Specification document would be different.

"Logic" of a brainwashed religious maniac won't help
either. No, it wouldn't be, since it isn't. Sorry,
poor trash.



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 02.04.2026 00:02, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 4/1/2026 10:48 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 01.04.2026 13:50, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 4/1/2026 1:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 31.03.2026 21:30, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

Laughing won't help,
and even such a disgusting
piece of lying shit as you are is sometimes
admitting.

???
Can you please explain what this statement means?
What is it I am is sometimes admitting?

That GPS uses a second calibrated to be 1/86400
of a mean solar day, not to be your SI idiocy.

So you claim that I sometimes am admitting that the frequency
of atomic clocks not are derived from the frequency of the hyperfine
transition of Cs as defined by SI, but are synchronised to count
86400 seconds per mean solar day.

Right. Even such a disgusting piece of lying
shit can't lie non stop, after all.

When you claim something you know is false, e.g. claim that
I admit something which you know I don't, then that is what
we call a lie.

And what's more, it's not possible that you can be ignorant of
the fact that the rate of atomic clocks is derived from
the frequency of the hyperfine transition of Cs as defined by SI.

So why are you pretending to be even more ignorant and stupid
than it is possible to be?

Are you a troll who is claiming what you know is false only to provoke?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 02.04.2026 08:31, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

Invoking your ideological absurd won't help, the real
second is pissing at it and is equivalent to
9 192 631 770 Cs radiation periods on Earth and
~9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite. Anyone can
check these numbers.

Quite.
I check your numbers and find them wrong.

One second is _per definition_ the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of
the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine
levels of of the caesium-133 atom.

It doesn't matter where the clock is, it will count seconds
according to the SI-definition on the ground, in GPS orbit
or on the Moon.

The duration of one orbit of a GPS SV is 43082.045250000 seconds
measured by a clock on the ground,
and 43082.045269235 seconds measured by a clock in a GPS SV.
Both numbers are correct.
(But only one of them is proper time.)
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 4/2/2026 12:34 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 02.04.2026 00:02, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 4/1/2026 10:48 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 01.04.2026 13:50, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 4/1/2026 1:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 31.03.2026 21:30, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

Laughing won't help,
and even such a disgusting
piece of lying shit as you are is sometimes
admitting.

???
Can you please explain what this statement means?
What is it I am is sometimes admitting?

That GPS uses a second calibrated to be 1/86400
of a mean solar day, not to be your SI idiocy.

So you claim that I sometimes am admitting that the frequency
of atomic clocks not are derived from the frequency of the hyperfine
transition of Cs as defined by SI, but are synchronised to count
86400 seconds per mean solar day.

Right. Even such a disgusting piece of lying
shit can't lie non stop, after all.

When you claim something you know is false, e.g. claim that
I admit something which you know I don't

On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.

Eat that, piece of shit.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 4/2/2026 1:26 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 02.04.2026 08:31, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

Invoking your ideological absurd won't help, the real
second is pissing at it and is equivalent to
9 192 631 770 Cs radiation periods on Earth and
~9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite. Anyone can
check these numbers.

Quite.
I check your numbers and find them wrong.

One second is _per definition_ the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of

Wrong, one second is per definition 1/86400
of a solar day. Your bunch of idiots has
been trying to change that for the sake
of some idiocies mumbled by your idiot guru,
your bunch of idiots didn't succeed.

You may define a shark as a " domesticated ruminant mammal with a thick
woolly coat and (typically only in the male) curving horns. It is kept
in flocks for its wool or meat, and is proverbial for its tendency to
follow others in the flock" - but it won't affect the real sharks,
likewise your redefinition of second didn't affect the real second.
Anyone can check GPS.




--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 02.04.2026 15:47, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 4/2/2026 12:34 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 02.04.2026 00:02, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

So you claim that I sometimes am admitting that the frequency
of atomic clocks not are derived from the frequency of the hyperfine
transition of Cs as defined by SI, but are synchronised to count
86400 seconds per mean solar day.

On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.

The 86400 'seconds' are not proper seconds, they are
shorter than a second by the factor (1 - 4.4647e-10).
That make them equal to a UTC-second.

That the clock has to be adjusted down as predicted
by GR is a confirmation of GR.

Eat that, piece of shit.

The frequency of all atomic clocks are derived from
the frequency of the hyperfine transition of Cs as defined by SI,
but it is obviously possible to adjust the rate of the clock in
a frequency synthesiser.

Only idiots can fail to understand that it is impossible to sync
the rate of an atomic clock to an external clock.
And you can't sync an external clock to the old definition of second
because the only clock that defined the second is at a museum
at Greenwich.

There is but one definition of second - the SI-definition.

Case closed.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 02.04.2026 15:53, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 4/2/2026 1:26 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Note the subject line.
It's about atomic clocks in Global Navigation Satellite Systems.

One second is _per definition_ the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods
of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of of the caesium-133 atom.

Wrong, one second is per definition 1/86400
of a solar day. Your bunch of idiots has
been trying to change that for the sake
of some idiocies mumbled by your idiot guru,
your bunch of idiots didn't succeed.

You may define a shark as a " domesticated ruminant mammal with a thick woolly coat and (typically only in the male) curving horns. It is kept
in flocks for its wool or meat, and is proverbial for its tendency to
follow others in the flock" - but it won't affect the real sharks,
likewise your redefinition of second didn't affect the real second.
Anyone can check GPS.

This is getting too stupid to be funny.
I have stopped laughing.

Case closed.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 4/2/2026 10:22 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 02.04.2026 15:47, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 4/2/2026 12:34 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 02.04.2026 00:02, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

So you claim that I sometimes am admitting that the frequency
of atomic clocks not are derived from the frequency of the hyperfine >>>>> transition of Cs as defined by SI, but are synchronised to count
86400 seconds per mean solar day.

On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.

The 86400 'seconds' are not proper seconds

Somehow, this opinion of your bunch of brainwashed
idiots hasn't been shared by professional measurement
staff of GPS.
Anyway, even such a disgusting piece of lying shit
as you are can't lie non stop, so sometimes
you're admitting that

the frequency
of atomic clocks not are derived from the frequency of the hyperfine
transition of Cs as defined by SI, but are synchronised to count
86400 seconds per mean solar day.

That's right, that's how things are in the
world we inhabit, common sense has been warning your
bunch of idiots.

The frequency of all atomic clocks are derived from
the frequency of the hyperfine transition of Cs as defined by SI,

A delusion. A bunch of idiots defining a shark
as a grass eater wouldn't affect the real sharks,
your bunch of idiots didn't affect the real
seconds. Anyone can check GPS, they have
9 192 631 770 periods on Earth and 9 192 631 774
on a GPS satellite. That makes the frequency frame
dependent - good bye, The Holiest Postulate.
Common sense has been warning your bunch of
idiots.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 4/2/2026 11:49 PM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 4/2/2026 10:22 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 02.04.2026 15:47, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 4/2/2026 12:34 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 02.04.2026 00:02, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

So you claim that I sometimes am admitting that the frequency
of atomic clocks not are derived from the frequency of the hyperfine >>>>>> transition of Cs as defined by SI, but are synchronised to count
86400 seconds per mean solar day.

On 4/10/2025 10:41 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

GPS clocks are adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s, and the clock will stay in sync with UTC.

The 86400 'seconds' are not proper seconds

Somehow, this opinion of your bunch of brainwashed
idiots hasn't been shared by professional measurement
staff of GPS.

I've told you - they've introduced postulates
of their own, and according to their postulates
what they did is not improper, it is OK.

BTW, you often scream that GPS works thanks
to corrections predicted by your bunch of
idiots. A lie - according to your bunch
of idiots those corrections are not proper.
And you insist on that for absolutely no
reasonable reason, it's just your blind
faith in whatever your idiot guru said.
Truly - GPS works thanks to ignoring your
bunch of idiots screaming that what it's
doing is not proper.



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2