From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity


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


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


Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 07/08/2026 |a 17:33, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

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

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

Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

On 2026-08-07, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day.

Correct.

But what does this have to do with special relativity?

Nothing.

A physical theory predicts relationships between physical quantities.
The choice of units used to express those quantities is a completely
separate issue.

Changing the definition of the second does not change Maxwell's equations.
It does not change Newton's laws.
It does not change special relativity either.

Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day.

Before asking for a prediction, you first have to define what you mean by
"the length of a solar day".

Do you mean

- the proper time measured by the observer's own clock?
- the coordinate time in the Solar System frame?
- the apparent interval between successive observations of the Sun?
- the interval between two local solar noons?

These are different physical quantities.

Special relativity does not identify them.

One prediction is - 99766.
From the postulates.

No.

No postulate of special relativity predicts that number.

You simply assert it without deriving it.

The second prediction is -
86400.
From definition.

No.

A definition predicts nothing.

A definition merely specifies the unit in which a duration is expressed.

Saying that one second is 1/86400 of a mean solar day (historically), or 9,192,631,770 periods of a cesium transition (today), does not determine
the duration of any physical process.

It only specifies how we assign a numerical value to a duration.

The same is true for the metre.

Historically it was defined from the Earth's meridian.
Today it is defined from the speed of light.

The Earth did not suddenly change size in 1983.

Only the definition of the unit changed.

Exactly the same applies to the second.

You are confusing

- the physical quantity,
- its numerical value,
- and the unit used to express it.

Physics deals with the first.
Metrology defines the third.

They are independent.

Finally, there is a practical issue with your proposal.

If a travelling observer insists on using the Earth's rotation as his
clock,
he first has to carry the entire Earth-Sun system along with him.

Otherwise there is no "solar day" available to measure.

The Earth's rotation is not a universal clock.
It is simply one particular periodic phenomenon occurring in one
particular
gravitationally bound system.

That is precisely why modern metrology abandoned the astronomical
definition
of the second in favour of an atomic one: atomic clocks are portable, reproducible, and independent of where you happen to be in the Universe.

If your definition of time requires packing the entire Solar System into
your suitcase before boarding the spacecraft, you have probably chosen the wrong clock.

A unit definition based on the Earth's rotation is inherently local,
whereas the proper time measured by a clock is a local physical quantity
that any observer can carry with them.

Have a nice day too :-P




--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote:

Le 07/08/2026 |a 17:33, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

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


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


Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

On 2026-08-07, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day.

Correct.

Oh, that pathetic piece of fanatic shit
is opening its muzzle again. And again
pretending to know something.
So, tell me, poor piece of shit, how
is "select now()::interval" in sql?
I mean - in sql, not in sql_by_some_idiot.

[snip some wild, utterly idiotic
assertions].
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 07/08/2026 |a 19:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote:

Le 07/08/2026 |a 17:33, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

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


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


Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

On 2026-08-07, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day.

Correct.

Oh, that pathetic piece of fanatic shit
is opening its muzzle again. And again
pretending to know something.
So, tell me, poor piece of shit, how
is "select now()::interval" in sql?
I mean - in sql, not in sql_by_some_idiot.

[snip some wild, utterly idiotic
assertions].

You have abandoned your original argument.

Instead of explaining how a definition of a unit can produce a physical prediction, you switched to personal insults and an unrelated SQL
question.

That is not an answer.

The question remains exactly the same:

How can a metrological definition of the second produce a prediction about
the duration of a physical phenomenon?

Until you answer that question, your claimed contradiction simply does not exist.

Suppose that tomorrow the SI redefines the second as twice its present duration.

Would all unstable particles suddenly live twice as long?
Would GPS satellites suddenly require different relativistic corrections?
Would Maxwell's equations change?

Of course not.

All numerical values expressed in seconds would simply be divided by two.
The physics would remain exactly the same.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 8/7/2026 7:26 PM, Python wrote:

Le 07/08/2026 |a 19:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Python wrote:

Le 07/08/2026 |a 17:33, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

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


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


Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

On 2026-08-07, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day.

Correct.

Oh, that pathetic piece of fanatic shit
is opening its muzzle again. And again
pretending to know something.
So, tell me, poor piece of shit, how
is "select now()::interval" in sql?
I mean - in sql, not in sql_by_some_idiot.

[snip some wild, utterly idiotic
assertions].

You have abandoned your original argument.

There is no point in arguing wild, baseless
assertions of some brainwashed fanatic idiot.

So, tell me, poor piece of shit, how
is "select now()::interval" in sql?
I mean - in sql, not in sql_by_some_idiot.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 2026-08-07, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

There is no point in arguing wild, baseless
assertions [...]

That is convenient, because you have still not answered the actual
objection.

Your original claim was:

1. before 1960, the second was defined from the solar day;
2. special relativity predicts a different duration for a moving observer;
3. therefore special relativity gives two contradictory predictions.

The objection was very simple:

a definition of a unit is not a physical prediction.

You have not addressed that point at all.

Instead, you have switched to insults and to an unrelated SQL question.

So let us keep this extremely simple.

If tomorrow the SI defined one second to be twice as long as it is today, would:

* muons physically live twice as long?
* GPS satellites physically run differently?
* the Earth's rotation physically slow down by a factor of two?
* Maxwell's equations change?

Obviously not.

Only the numerical values used to express durations would change.

That is the distinction you keep avoiding:

physical quantity != numerical value != unit definition.

Your alleged contradiction disappears as soon as those three things are
not confused.

As for

select now()::interval

whether that expression is valid, invalid, PostgreSQL-specific, or syntactically absurd has exactly zero bearing on the definition of the
second or on special relativity.

If you want to discuss SQL, discuss SQL.

If you want to defend your claim about relativity, answer the objection
about units.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Python wrote:

On 2026-08-07, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Up to 1960 it was ordinary 1/86400 of a solar day.

Correct.

But what does this have to do with special relativity?

both wrong; you didnt have that shorter time interval yet, as to divide
that solar day with it. That division task is impossible.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote:

Le 07/08/2026 a 17:33, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :

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

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

Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

On 2026-08-07, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:

Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day.

Correct.

But what does this have to do with special relativity?

Nothing.

A physical theory predicts relationships between physical quantities.
The choice of units used to express those quantities is a completely separate issue.

Changing the definition of the second does not change Maxwell's equations.
It does not change Newton's laws.
It does not change special relativity either.

Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day.

Before asking for a prediction, you first have to define what you mean by "the length of a solar day".

Do you mean

- the proper time measured by the observer's own clock?
- the coordinate time in the Solar System frame?
- the apparent interval between successive observations of the Sun?
- the interval between two local solar noons?

These are different physical quantities.

Special relativity does not identify them.

One prediction is - 99766.
From the postulates.

No.

No postulate of special relativity predicts that number.

You simply assert it without deriving it.

The second prediction is -
86400.
From definition.

No.

A definition predicts nothing.

A definition merely specifies the unit in which a duration is expressed.

Right. The results of physical measurements are never numbers,
they are always ratios.

Saying that one second is 1/86400 of a mean solar day (historically), or 9,192,631,770 periods of a cesium transition (today), does not determine
the duration of any physical process.

It only specifies how we assign a numerical value to a duration.

As a matter of historical fact the Cesium SI second was defined to be
slightly shorter than 1/86400 of a mean solar day. (then)
The reason was that they wanted to have positive leap seconds only,
not alternating ones. (which holds, so far)

So, as of 1967, the mean solar day has never again
been equal to 86400 seconds. [1]

Jan

[1] How long it really is at any given moment needs to be measured,
(by the IERS)


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 8/7/2026 10:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote:

Le 07/08/2026 |a 17:33, Maciej Wo?niak a |-crit :

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


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


Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

On 2026-08-07, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:

Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day.

Correct.

But what does this have to do with special relativity?

Nothing.

A physical theory predicts relationships between physical quantities.
The choice of units used to express those quantities is a completely
separate issue.

Changing the definition of the second does not change Maxwell's equations. >> It does not change Newton's laws.
It does not change special relativity either.

Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day.

Before asking for a prediction, you first have to define what you mean by
"the length of a solar day".

Do you mean

- the proper time measured by the observer's own clock?
- the coordinate time in the Solar System frame?
- the apparent interval between successive observations of the Sun?
- the interval between two local solar noons?

These are different physical quantities.

Special relativity does not identify them.

One prediction is - 99766.
From the postulates.

No.

No postulate of special relativity predicts that number.

You simply assert it without deriving it.

The second prediction is -
86400.
From definition.

No.

A definition predicts nothing.

A definition merely specifies the unit in which a duration is expressed.

Right. The results of physical measurements are never numbers,
they are always ratios.

And when your idiot guru lived and mumbled -
they were ratios to a mean solar day. Thus,
amongst many idiocies your Shit had predicted,
there was that the ratio between a solar day
and itself will be 99766/86400.

Saying that one second is 1/86400 of a mean solar day (historically), or
9,192,631,770 periods of a cesium transition (today), does not determine
the duration of any physical process.

It only specifies how we assign a numerical value to a duration.

As a matter of historical fact the Cesium SI second was defined to be slightly shorter than 1/86400 of a mean solar day. (then)
The reason was that they wanted to have positive leap seconds only,
not alternating ones. (which holds, so far)

So, as of 1967, the mean solar day has never again
been equal to 86400 seconds. [1]

A complete nonsense, as expected from a poor
idiot Loddie.
Do youunderstand that "the mean solar day" may
as well mean "the mean solar day of 1900" or
"the mean solar day of july 1900" or "the
mean solar day between 1571-02-23 and 1720-05-01"?
Do you, Loddie? Or are you too stupid even for that?


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 08.08.2026 06:16, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 8/7/2026 10:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

The results of physical measurements are never numbers,
they are always ratios.

And when your idiot guru lived and mumbled -
they were ratios to a mean solar day. Thus,
amongst many idiocies your Shit had predicted,
there was that the ratio between a solar day
and itself will be 99766/86400.

:-D
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 8/8/2026 7:07 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 08.08.2026 06:16, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 8/7/2026 10:41 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

The results of physical measurements are never numbers,
they are always ratios.

And when your idiot guru lived and mumbled -
they were ratios to a mean solar day. Thus,
amongst many idiocies your Shit had predicted,
there was that the ratio between a solar day
and itself will be 99766/86400.

:-D

Would be indeed very funny, poor trash -
if it wasn't so tragic.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2