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.

Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>
> 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.

If you insist in using the solar system as a local
clock, no problem Woz. Just take your own copy of
the solar system along yourself when moving around.

W dniu 14.04.2024 o 00:44, Python pisze:
> Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>
>> 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.
>
> If you insist in using the solar system as a local
> clock,

I don't.
BTW, tell me, poor stinker, have you already
learnt what a function is? Are you still
trying to determine its properties applying a
French definition of a different word?

> no problem Woz. Just take your own copy of
> the solar system along yourself when moving around.

What an idiocy. Even considering the usual
level of the Shit's worshippers - it's
amazing, Pyt.

>
>
>
>
>

Le 14/04/2024 à 00:44, Python a écrit :
> Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

> no problem Woz.

Pourquoi ce ton familier, Pyth?

R.H.

On 4/13/2024 6:44 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> If you insist in using the solar system as a local
> clock, no problem Woz. Just take your own copy of
> the solar system along yourself when moving around.

Woz's problem is that he doesn't know the difference between a clock and
time itself. Or he does but doesn't care.

I'll let him out of the killfile long enough to address him on this (yet
again).

<knolp>
>
> 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.

Because nobody knew of SR and its time dilation when this definition of
the second was created, and nobody experienced anything moving at a
speed c/2. Galilean/Newtonian time was assumed and a second being
1/86400 earth rotation was expected to be valid everywhere.

The rotating earth is a clock, no more and no less. It was the best
clock anyone in 1905 had, which is why it was used to define the second.
But the earth doesn't create time, or create the second or anything like
that, not even before 1960. It's just a clock.

Einstein would have told us that the earth is a clock and it is not
local to the c/2 traveler, so the c/2 traveler would see the earth
rotating too slowly since it is not local. It would cause confusion if
time dilation was unknown and not compensated for, trying to base timed
events on observation of the remote earth will cause trouble. That was
part of the motivation for using the Cs-based definition, you don't need
to observe the solar system or be stationary relative to it.

Since Einstein's SR doesn't depend on the definition of a second, and it
would be valid on Alpha Centauri where the inhabitants use the glozzyxn
as the time unit. SR would work just fine there. And on earth, switching
from 1/86400 of a rotation of a space rock to 9192631770 cycles of an
atomic transition has zero effect on SR. The only effect would be a tiny
difference between the length of 1/86400 space rock rotation and
9192631770 atomic cycles, in part due to the wobbliness of the space rock.

Bye,
<plonk>

W dniu 15.04.2024 o 06:47, Volney pisze:
> On 4/13/2024 6:44 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If you insist in using the solar system as a local
>> clock, no problem Woz. Just take your own copy of
>> the solar system along yourself when moving around.
>
> Woz's problem is that he doesn't know the difference between a clock and
> time itself. Or he does but doesn't care.

And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.

>>
>>  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.
>
> Because nobody knew of SR and its time dilation when this definition of
> the second was created

And when your idiot guru started to mumble, his
mumble was inconsistent, Vol.

Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 4/13/2024 6:44 PM, Python wrote:
> > Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > If you insist in using the solar system as a local
> > clock, no problem Woz. Just take your own copy of
> > the solar system along yourself when moving around.
>
> Woz's problem is that he doesn't know the difference between a clock and
> time itself. Or he does but doesn't care.
>
> I'll let him out of the killfile long enough to address him on this (yet
> again).
>
> <knolp>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Because nobody knew of SR and its time dilation when this definition of
> the second was created, and nobody experienced anything moving at a
> speed c/2. Galilean/Newtonian time was assumed and a second being
> 1/86400 earth rotation was expected to be valid everywhere.

Woz has got even that wrong. Days are -not- 86400 seconds long,
ever since Huygens invented the pendulum clock.
(obolishing the sun dial)
Days are 86400 second long only in the mean.
The actual observations of time are of the siderial day of 23h56',
and computed corrections are applied to that
to obtain -mean- solar time.

> The rotating earth is a clock, no more and no less.

Indeed. Newton's equations of motion naturally lead to the question:
what is this 'time' that occurs in it.
Huygens gave the answer, and Newton took it over.
Time is what the clock says it is --because--
a clock moves in occordance with Newton's laws.
(a nicely circular definition, like all good physcs definitions)

Which object moving in occordance with Newton's laws
is the most suitable clock is only a matter of convinience.
The Jovian moons for example, or the length of the tropical year
will do as well. (but less conveniently so)

> It was the best
> clock anyone in 1905 had, which is why it was used to define the second.
> But the earth doesn't create time, or create the second or anything like
> that, not even before 1960. It's just a clock.

Actually the first clocks accurate enough to measure irregularities
in the rotation of the Earth appeared in the 1930s.
(Shortt free pedulum clocks and stabilised quartz clocks, at ~10^-8)

> Einstein would have told us that the earth is a clock and it is not
> local to the c/2 traveler, so the c/2 traveler would see the earth
> rotating too slowly since it is not local. It would cause confusion if
> time dilation was unknown and not compensated for, trying to base timed
> events on observation of the remote earth will cause trouble. That was
> part of the motivation for using the Cs-based definition, you don't need
> to observe the solar system or be stationary relative to it.

Einstein 1905 took over Huygens' definition,
but he replaced 'moving in accordance with Newton's equations'
by in 'moving in accordance with Maxwell's equations'.
(the bouncing light mirror clock for example) [1]

So the all of the yapping about the rotation of the Earth
is pointless. As of 1905 the rotation of the Earth
was no longer the theoretical basis for the definition of physical time.
(that is, the time as it occurs in Maxwell's equations)

It remained only as a practical definition,
for the time being,

Jan

[1] Note the the time of a so called 'Cesium clock'
is actualy the resonant frequency of standing EM waves cavity.
The Cesium atoms merely serve to stabilise it.

W dniu 15.04.2024 o 13:38, J. J. Lodder pisze:
> Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 4/13/2024 6:44 PM, Python wrote:
>>> Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you insist in using the solar system as a local
>>> clock, no problem Woz. Just take your own copy of
>>> the solar system along yourself when moving around.
>>
>> Woz's problem is that he doesn't know the difference between a clock and
>> time itself. Or he does but doesn't care.
>>
>> I'll let him out of the killfile long enough to address him on this (yet
>> again).
>>
>> <knolp>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Because nobody knew of SR and its time dilation when this definition of
>> the second was created, and nobody experienced anything moving at a
>> speed c/2. Galilean/Newtonian time was assumed and a second being
>> 1/86400 earth rotation was expected to be valid everywhere.
>
> Woz has got even that wrong. Days are -not- 86400 seconds long,

Lod, poor lying piece of shit, I don't say they are, I
only say that your idiot guru (and the first generations
of relativistic morons as well) were applying the
definition of second referring to 1/86400 of a day.

Will you have the impudence to deny?

Volney wrote:

> On 4/13/2024 6:44 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>> 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.
>>>
>> If you insist in using the solar system as a local clock, no problem
>> Woz. Just take your own copy of the solar system along yourself when
>> moving around.
>
> Woz's problem is that he doesn't know the difference between a clock and
> time itself. Or he does but doesn't care.

absolutely. He is not a jew.

Are the Germans really that stupid? The US and NATO are at war with Russia
and China, just not yet a shooting war. And Germany expects China to
decouple from Russia?

Taking your 'directions' from USA is a fraught approach to anything sane or
logical. Lets do some actual comparisons. USA has population of around 350
Million. EU and UK and other odds and sods in Europe amount to nearly a
Billion. Why does anyone need to listen to the USA on anything. It's real
power comes from the Fifth Column Jews running both US and Europe. Thats
what needs stifling! Just to recap. India and China represent 2,8 million
people!

Ok. Sanctions against China can hurt Germany more. But who cares. Sanctions
against Russia also hurt Germany more despite this, they were implemented.

Beggars cannot be chooses

Germany is trying to build a relationship in a visit and obviously they are
so out of touch with reality they truly don't understand that Russia and
China cannot be seperated. Ursula is toxic and needs to go, preferably to
hell.

Germany is a colony. Do we really expect a puppet to have back bone? Lol if
his nose grew longer Everytime he lied Germany would have plenty of
firewood for Charlie brown pinnochio. Bmw! Shit bags!

I don't know whether to feel bad for Germans or what. They are ISRAELS
little bitch now. F*** you people! You will all die for betraying the human
race

Scultz is the worst German leader yet and who wants to even listen to this
idiot. Best for the Germans to vote this idiot out as he hasnt done nothing
good for Germany.....

https://www.r%74.com/news/596038-scholz-subservient-us-visit-china/