About new, better definition of second

[Maciej Wozniak]

That's how it works in physics: an idiot is
mumbling about pears growing on a willow -
and his obedient doggies are preparing some
new, better definitons of pears and willows.

And then pears growing on a willow are
confirmed; with a little help of new,
better definition of "confirming", of
course.

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak
That's how it works in physics: an idiot is
mumbling about pears growing on a willow -
and his obedient doggies are preparing some
new, better definitons of pears and willows.
And then pears growing on a willow are
confirmed; with a little help of new,
better definition of "confirming", of
course.

If you hadn't decided to stay as far as possible to physics you would know
that it is definitely not "how it works".

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak
That's how it works in physics: an idiot is
mumbling about pears growing on a willow -
and his obedient doggies are preparing some
new, better definitons of pears and willows.
And then pears growing on a willow are
confirmed; with a little help of new,
better definition of "confirming", of
course.

If you hadn't decided to stay as far as possible to physics you would
know that it is definitely not "how it works".

An idiot screaming "NOOOOOOOO!!!!", spitting
and slandering is not going to change the
facts, sorry, poor stinker.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak
That's how it works in physics: an idiot is
mumbling about pears growing on a willow -
and his obedient doggies are preparing some
new, better definitons of pears and willows.
And then pears growing on a willow are
confirmed; with a little help of new,
better definition of "confirming", of
course.

If you hadn't decided to stay as far as possible to physics you would know
that it is definitely not "how it works".

[for the strayed-in, and perhaps misled kiddies, if any]

Indeed, relativity, or any other theory, has nothing to do with it.
It is pure empirism, about realising the best posible time standard.
Averaging the many atomic clocks to obtain TAI just takes
the observed clock rates into account.
The why of some clocks being systematically slow or fast,
with respect to the average of them all, doesn't come into it.

As a matter of fact BIPM begins the clock comparisons
with the computation of EAL, the Echelle Atomique Libre,
which is just an average that doesn't involve any corrections.
Next they compute TAI from that.

An empirical correlation of clock rate with altitude,
or more precisely with the Newtonian potential,
would work just as well for the purpose,

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak
That's how it works in physics: an idiot is
mumbling about pears growing on a willow -
and his obedient doggies are preparing some
new, better definitons of pears and willows.
And then pears growing on a willow are
confirmed; with a little help of new,
better definition of "confirming", of
course.

If you hadn't decided to stay as far as possible to physics you would know
that it is definitely not "how it works".

[for the strayed-in, and perhaps misled kiddies, if any]
Indeed, relativity, or any other theory, has nothing to do with it.
It is pure empirism

If an idiot says - simply must be true. No
postulates in The Shit! No definitions in
The Shit! No mathematics (with its axioms)
in The Shit!
Pure empirism, Nature Herself is speaking
through the mouths of relativistic idiots.

And, of course - the fact that it is
Nature Herself speaking through him
is making a relativistic idiot unfailiable.
He can never be mistaken, like ordinary
mortal worms.