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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.










--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 4/13/2024 6:44 PM, Python wrote:

Le 13/04/2024 � 19:55, Maciej Wozniak 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.

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 02/10/2024 à 11:25, 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.

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

Already answered.

You argument is pathetically stupid even for you (low) standards.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 02.10.2024 o 14:13, Python pisze:

Le 02/10/2024 à 11:25, 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.


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

Already answered.

Sure - with screaming "NOOOO!!!",
wild, idiotic assertions, insults and
slanders.

Not that anything better should be
expected from Shit's doggies, of
course.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 02.10.2024 o 15:16, Python pisze:

Le 02/10/2024 à 15:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.10.2024 o 14:13, Python pisze:

Le 02/10/2024 à 11:25, 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.


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

Already answered.

Sure - with screaming "NOOOO!!!",
wild, idiotic assertions, insults and
slanders.

Not at all. With sensible answers

You mean that wild concept that "Earth"
must (sic) mean a gedanken copy of Earth
immobile wrt observer?
Or maybe that idiotic assertion that the
physics theories can't depend on unit
definitions - against the proof that
they do?

Come on, poor stinker. You're provided
nothing, and your fellow idiots didn't do
any better.

The mumble of your idiot guru was not
even consistent, it has been proven.
A herd of brainwashed religious maniacs
screaming "NOOOO!!!", insulting and
slandering won't change anything, really.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 02/10/2024 à 15:39, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.10.2024 o 15:16, Python pisze:

Le 02/10/2024 à 15:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.10.2024 o 14:13, Python pisze:

Le 02/10/2024 à 11:25, 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.


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

Already answered.

Sure - with screaming "NOOOO!!!",
wild, idiotic assertions, insults and
slanders.

Not at all. With sensible answers

You mean that wild concept that "Earth"
must (sic) mean a gedanken copy of Earth
immobile wrt observer?
Or maybe that [snip slander] assertion that the
physics theories can't depend on unit
definitions -

Yes. Both.

against the proof that they do?

There is no such "proof".

poor stinker, fellow idiot, brainwashed religious maniac
screaming "NOOOO!!!", insulting and slandering

Nice signature Wozniak.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 02/10/2024 à 15:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.10.2024 o 14:13, Python pisze:

Le 02/10/2024 à 11:25, 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.


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

Already answered.

Sure - with screaming "NOOOO!!!",
wild, idiotic assertions, insults and
slanders.

Not at all. With sensible answers you are too stubborn
and dumb to consider.

[snip screams, idiotic assertions and slanders]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 02.10.2024 o 15:48, Python pisze:

Le 02/10/2024 à 15:39, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.10.2024 o 15:16, Python pisze:

Le 02/10/2024 à 15:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.10.2024 o 14:13, Python pisze:

Le 02/10/2024 à 11:25, 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.


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

Already answered.

Sure - with screaming "NOOOO!!!",
wild, idiotic assertions, insults and
slanders.

Not at all. With sensible answers

You mean that wild concept that "Earth"
must (sic) mean a gedanken copy of Earth
immobile wrt observer?
Or maybe that [snip slander] assertion that the
physics theories can't depend on unit
definitions -

Yes. Both.

Well, both wild, idiotic assertions,
as expected from a relativistic idiot.

against the proof that they do?

There is no such "proof".

With the definition of second as it was in 1905 -
The Shit of your idiot guru was some self-denying
idiotic mumble; without it/after changing it it
is consistent idiotic mumble. That proves it
does depend on the definition of second.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 02/10/2024 à 15:48, Python a écrit :

Le 02/10/2024 à 15:39, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

poor stinker, fellow idiot, brainwashed religious maniac
screaming "NOOOO!!!", insulting and slandering

Nice signature Wozniak.

Mais c'est pas vrai, merde!

Bon, au lieu de faire le con avec Maciej et à discuter du sexe des ans
et de l'égalité t'=t,
essaye de te convaincre qu'il y a peut-être mieux à foutre.

J'attends toujours quelque chose de cohérent sur les vitesses apparentes
et l'effet Doppler relativiste,
j'attends des trucs cohérents sur la notion de synchronisation, et sur la notion de relativité de l'hyperplan de la simultanéité.

Trois choses sur lesquelles tu t'es introduit en prétendant
arbitrairement, et pour des raisons probablement personnelles, donc non scientifiques, que "le docteur Hachel est un crétin".

Il faut en donner les preuves, mais les preuves cohérentes, et pas les "machins" approximatifs que personne ne comprend clairement.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 02.10.2024 o 19:33, rhertz pisze:

On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 9:25:50 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

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.

"Time is what my clock shows", infamously asserted at the beginning of
his plagiarized 1905 paper.

Assertion still sustained nowadays by relativists.

So, even moving at c/2, the clock of the moving observer would dictate
that a day last 86,400 seconds.

With the definition of second as it
was when the idiot was living and mumbling
(and as it still is outside their moronic
liturgy) - for sure.

But relativity sustain the narrative that, even when your clock marks
86,400 seconds/day, a remote clock (located on Earth's surface) would
mark 99,766 seconds/day.

All of this because OF A FORMULA, being impossible to verify it experimentally.

This is a sample of the degree of INSANITY that relativists have, and
they are NOT ACCOUNTABLE for the lack of means to prove it.

Mental degenerates, who ruined physics for more than a century.

That's why physics IS DISAPPEARING as a science, at an accelerated pace
in the last three decades.

Technology, by the hand of engineering, is taking its place.

Relativists are cornered on the useless fields of cosmology,

Even relativists are not stupid enough to
treat their idiocies seriously; the models
they really apply have Euclidean space and
a single time. They only pretend.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Mittwoch000002, 02.10.2024 um 11:25 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

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 measure the length of the solar day on Earth from a spaceship
receeding away with c/2, then you measure signals from- say- sunrise in Greenwich at the 0° meridian for a day.

These signals are measured with onboard clocks.

Since light is assumed to travel with c, the signal originated at
t_0=6:00 GMT is received at a time, which is t_x1 later. This depends on
the distance x_1, by which the spaceship has receded from Earth at t_1 GMT.

x= c* t hence t_x1 = x_1/ c

A day later on Earth the time at the zero meridian is 6:00 GMT + 1 day.

Then another message is sent to the spaceship, which had moved away with
c/2 within that day.

For this signal the same is valid, but with a different distance x_2,
since that spaceship is now further away.

The distance from Earth is now x_2 = x_1 + c/2*86400 s.

The time needed to reach the ship is therefore

t_x2 = (x_1 + c/2*86400 s)/c

or:

t_x2 = ( x_1/c + (c/c) * (86400/2)s).
=t_x1 + 43200 s

The length of a day on Earth, if measured from that spaceship is therefore

86400s + 43200 s = 129600 s (in terms of Earth time measures).

Whether the crew upon that spaceship encounters a difference in the
onboard measurements is a possibility, but should be subject to experiments.



TH

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 03.10.2024 o 09:00, Thomas Heger pisze:

Am Mittwoch000002, 02.10.2024 um 11:25 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

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 measure the length of the solar day

I don't. It is not a thread about
measurments of a day - it's a thread
about deriving conclusions from
some idiotic mumble.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 02.10.2024 19:33, skrev rhertz:

"Time is what my clock shows", infamously asserted at the beginning of
his plagiarized 1905 paper.

In physics "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument we use to measure "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So whatever "time" is, it is what we measure with clocks.

How do you think Newton measured time?

Note that clocks measure "proper time".

Coordinate time is not "proper time".

So, even moving at c/2, the clock of the moving observer would dictate
that a day last 86,400 seconds.

A second is by _definition_ 1/86400 part of a _mean_ solar day.
(See below')

So what is your point?

A clock which is built to advance a second per second
will obviously always advance 86400 seconds during
a mean solar day. It doesn't matter where it is, or
how fast it moves relative to something.

But relativity sustain the narrative that, even when your clock marks
86,400 seconds/day, a remote clock (located on Earth's surface) would
mark 99,766 seconds/day.

Don't be ridiculous. A clock on the geoid would advance
86,400 seconds during a mean solar day, _by definition_!

But no solar day is 86,400 seconds.

At Greenwich they measured the duration of a solar day every day
for a more than a century, and they adjusted the master clock at
Greenwich so that it advanced 86,400 seconds during one _mean_
solar day. THIS WAS THE DEFINITION OF A SECOND.

So it was one single clock in the world which defined the second.
This was very impractical.
So in 1960 SI defined the second based on the Cs atom.
They obviously defined it so that one second still was equal
to 1/86400 part of a mean solar day.

But now a clock with the right rate can be built anywhere
in the world without having to compare it to the clock
at Greenwich.

All of this because OF A FORMULA, being impossible to verify it experimentally.

All what?

All you have done so far is to demonstrate your _very_
naive and ridiculous belief of what SR predicts.

You actually believe that according to SR, the motion
of an arbitrary observer somewhere in the universe
will affect the physical rate of all clocks in the universe!

And what's even worse, you believe that all physicists born
after 1900 believe that the motion of an arbitrary
observer will affect all clocks in the universe!

How clueless is it possible to be? :-D

----------------

But of course I understand what phenomenon you have misinterpreted.
It is that clocks at different positions and with relative
speed between them may measure different proper time between two events.

So let's look at an example.

A satellite is in circular orbit in the equatorial plane.
The satellite orbits in the same direction as the Earth rotates.
A clock on the geoid at equator measure the proper time between
each time the satellite passes overhead to be exactly one
sidereal day. τ₁ = 86164.0905000 s

(Note that when the satellite passes overhead of the ground clock,
the satellite has made two orbits while the Earth has made one full
rotation. So the orbital time of the satellite is half a sidereal day.)

According to GR a clock in the satellite will measure the proper
time between each time it passes over the clock on the ground
to be τ₂ = 86164.0905000⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s = 86164.0905385 s

τ₂-τ₁ = 38.5 μs

This is so thoroughly experimentally verified that it can
be considered a FACT.

You will as always make a fool of yourself by denying facts.


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 03.10.2024 o 22:25, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:

Den 02.10.2024 19:33, skrev rhertz:

"Time is what my clock shows", infamously asserted at the beginning of
his plagiarized 1905 paper.

In physics "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.

In physics most of the word you mumble
has lost any meaning; including "time".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 03.10.2024 o 22:25, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:

So it was one single clock in the world which defined the second.
This was very impractical.
So in 1960 SI defined  the second based on the Cs atom.

And, as anyone can check at GPS - this utter
absurd is even more impractical.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 26/10/2024 à 14:44, 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.

No.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 26.10.2024 o 14:48, Python pisze:

Le 26/10/2024 à 14:44, 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.

No.

Some fanatic idiots screaming "NO!!!"
can't change anything, the mumble of
their beloved guru was not even consistent
and it has been proven.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 26/10/2024 à 15:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 26.10.2024 o 14:48, Python pisze:

Le 26/10/2024 à 14:44, 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.

No.

[SR] was not even consistent
and it has been proven.

No.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 26.10.2024 o 15:53, Python pisze:

Le 26/10/2024 à 15:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 26.10.2024 o 14:48, Python pisze:

Le 26/10/2024 à 14:44, 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.

No.

[SR] was not even consistent
and it has been proven.

No.

Some fanatic idiots screaming "NO!!!"
can't change anything, the mumble of
their beloved guru was not even consistent
and it has been proven.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 26/10/2024 à 16:30, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 26.10.2024 o 15:53, Python pisze:

Le 26/10/2024 à 15:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 26.10.2024 o 14:48, Python pisze:

Le 26/10/2024 à 14:44, 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.

No.

[SR] was not even consistent
and it has been proven.

No.

[SR] was not even consistent
and it has been proven.

No.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Donnerstag000019, 19.12.2024 um 08:02 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

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.

Look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length_fluctuations#/media/File:Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day.svg

We can see, that length of the solar day is shifting by about 1 ms per
day within a year.

The length of the day is also about 1 ms longer than 86400 seconds on
average over the entire plot.

Would we add this 1 ms to the day, we could see, that Earth' rotation is actually speeding up occasionally, because the delta t value also goes
down in recent years.

Iow: if delta t is less today than half a century ago and we had already
added one or two ms to the day length, now the Earth would rotate faster
than before.

This is so because in that case, the cumulative delta t curve would go down.

Another good question would be:

what causes this pronounced 1ms shift in the length of day within every
single year.

This does not sound like much, but actually means, that the Earth
rotation is speeding up and down significantly and with a distinct
measurable pattern of 1ms per day.

Given the large mass of the Earth this would require a lot of angular
momentum to be lost and gained (every single year).

Somehow I cannot believe this could happen in reality. So, the only
possible explanation is, that the UTC-time itself is shifting by 1ms per
day within a year (which is colossal number, if you take the assumed
precision of atomic clocks into consideration).


TH

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

Am Donnerstag000019, 19.12.2024 um 08:02 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

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.

Look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length_fluctuations#/media/File:Deviation_of

_day_length_from_SI_day.svg

We can see, that length of the solar day is shifting by about 1 ms per
day within a year.

The length of the day is also about 1 ms longer than 86400 seconds on
average over the entire plot.

Would we add this 1 ms to the day, we could see, that Earth' rotation is actually speeding up occasionally, because the delta t value also goes
down in recent years.

Iow: if delta t is less today than half a century ago and we had already added one or two ms to the day length, now the Earth would rotate faster
than before.

This is so because in that case, the cumulative delta t curve would go down.

Another good question would be:

what causes this pronounced 1ms shift in the length of day within every single year.

This does not sound like much, but actually means, that the Earth
rotation is speeding up and down significantly and with a distinct
measurable pattern of 1ms per day.

Given the large mass of the Earth this would require a lot of angular momentum to be lost and gained (every single year).

Somehow I cannot believe this could happen in reality. So, the only
possible explanation is, that the UTC-time itself is shifting by 1ms per
day within a year (which is colossal number, if you take the assumed precision of atomic clocks into consideration).

Your mistake lies in the assumption that all those short term
fluctuations involve a change in angular momentum.
Only a part of the long term trend is caused by that,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Montag000023, 23.12.2024 um 21:07 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

Am Donnerstag000019, 19.12.2024 um 08:02 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

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.

Look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length_fluctuations#/media/File:Deviation_of

_day_length_from_SI_day.svg

We can see, that length of the solar day is shifting by about 1 ms per
day within a year.

The length of the day is also about 1 ms longer than 86400 seconds on
average over the entire plot.

Would we add this 1 ms to the day, we could see, that Earth' rotation is
actually speeding up occasionally, because the delta t value also goes
down in recent years.

Iow: if delta t is less today than half a century ago and we had already
added one or two ms to the day length, now the Earth would rotate faster
than before.

This is so because in that case, the cumulative delta t curve would go down. >>
Another good question would be:

what causes this pronounced 1ms shift in the length of day within every
single year.

This does not sound like much, but actually means, that the Earth
rotation is speeding up and down significantly and with a distinct
measurable pattern of 1ms per day.

Given the large mass of the Earth this would require a lot of angular
momentum to be lost and gained (every single year).

Somehow I cannot believe this could happen in reality. So, the only
possible explanation is, that the UTC-time itself is shifting by 1ms per
day within a year (which is colossal number, if you take the assumed
precision of atomic clocks into consideration).

Your mistake lies in the assumption that all those short term
fluctuations involve a change in angular momentum.
Only a part of the long term trend is caused by that,

Actually I had assumed, that Earth cannot loose angular momentum at all.

If now a fluctuation in the apparent length of the solar does occurs,
than something must be wrong.

The question would be: what is actually wrong, since it is simply
impossible for the entire Earth rotation to speed up and slow down on an
annual basis.

Therefore there must be a reason, which is possibly overlooked, that
would make the solar day longer over the course of a year and later
shorter again.

I personally would guess, that the elliptic form of Earth' orbit around
the sun is responsible.

But that would require a reason, which was not yet covered by standard cosmology.


TH

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Montag000023, 23.12.2024 um 21:07 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

Am Donnerstag000019, 19.12.2024 um 08:02 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

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.

Look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length_fluctuations#/media/File:Deviation_of

_day_length_from_SI_day.svg

We can see, that length of the solar day is shifting by about 1 ms per
day within a year.

The length of the day is also about 1 ms longer than 86400 seconds on
average over the entire plot.

Would we add this 1 ms to the day, we could see, that Earth' rotation is >> actually speeding up occasionally, because the delta t value also goes
down in recent years.

Iow: if delta t is less today than half a century ago and we had already >> added one or two ms to the day length, now the Earth would rotate faster >> than before.

This is so because in that case, the cumulative delta t curve would go down.

Another good question would be:

what causes this pronounced 1ms shift in the length of day within every
single year.

This does not sound like much, but actually means, that the Earth
rotation is speeding up and down significantly and with a distinct
measurable pattern of 1ms per day.

Given the large mass of the Earth this would require a lot of angular
momentum to be lost and gained (every single year).

Somehow I cannot believe this could happen in reality. So, the only
possible explanation is, that the UTC-time itself is shifting by 1ms per >> day within a year (which is colossal number, if you take the assumed
precision of atomic clocks into consideration).

Your mistake lies in the assumption that all those short term
fluctuations involve a change in angular momentum.
Only a part of the long term trend is caused by that,

Actually I had assumed, that Earth cannot loose angular momentum at all.

If now a fluctuation in the apparent length of the solar does occurs,
than something must be wrong.

The question would be: what is actually wrong, since it is simply
impossible for the entire Earth rotation to speed up and slow down on an annual basis.

Therefore there must be a reason, which is possibly overlooked, that
would make the solar day longer over the course of a year and later
shorter again.

I personally would guess, that the elliptic form of Earth' orbit around
the sun is responsible.

But that would require a reason, which was not yet covered by standard cosmology.

TH

I thought I explained dis all already..

all the above is caused by the gravitional waves from the black hole.

'Earth loose angular momentum'

"entire Earth rotation to speed up and slow down"

"the solar day longer over the course of a year and later
shorter again."

'bees fly north instead of south'

'the magnetic north pole is in Brooklyn'


all caused by waves in the ocean of space the earth wobbles in.


The black hole wobbles everything in our solar system.


but don't worry, it is subsiding...



--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

Am Montag000023, 23.12.2024 um 21:07 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

Am Donnerstag000019, 19.12.2024 um 08:02 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

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.

Look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length_fluctuations#/media/File:Deviation

_of

_day_length_from_SI_day.svg

We can see, that length of the solar day is shifting by about 1 ms per
day within a year.

The length of the day is also about 1 ms longer than 86400 seconds on
average over the entire plot.

Would we add this 1 ms to the day, we could see, that Earth' rotation is >> actually speeding up occasionally, because the delta t value also goes
down in recent years.

Iow: if delta t is less today than half a century ago and we had already >> added one or two ms to the day length, now the Earth would rotate faster >> than before.

This is so because in that case, the cumulative delta t curve would go >>down.

Another good question would be:

what causes this pronounced 1ms shift in the length of day within every
single year.

This does not sound like much, but actually means, that the Earth
rotation is speeding up and down significantly and with a distinct
measurable pattern of 1ms per day.

Given the large mass of the Earth this would require a lot of angular
momentum to be lost and gained (every single year).

Somehow I cannot believe this could happen in reality. So, the only
possible explanation is, that the UTC-time itself is shifting by 1ms per >> day within a year (which is colossal number, if you take the assumed
precision of atomic clocks into consideration).

Your mistake lies in the assumption that all those short term
fluctuations involve a change in angular momentum.
Only a part of the long term trend is caused by that,

Actually I had assumed, that Earth cannot loose angular momentum at all.

If now a fluctuation in the apparent length of the solar does occurs,
than something must be wrong.

The question would be: what is actually wrong, since it is simply
impossible for the entire Earth rotation to speed up and slow down on an annual basis.

You really need to bone up on elementary classical mechanics,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)