https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard

We have about 20 different times mentioned
here. Is any of them required by trees to grow
and fade?

Would the trees stop growing if Barycentric
Coordinate Time didn't exist? How about
Terrestrial Dynamical Time?

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

Le 18/10/2024 à 13:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard

We have about 20 different times mentioned
here. Is any of them required by trees to grow
and fade?

Would the trees stop growing if Barycentric
Coordinate Time didn't exist? How about
Terrestrial Dynamical Time?

You are confusing denotation with what is denoted.

This is quite unexpected coming from one of the
best logician Humanity ever had (allegedly).

This is quite expected from Maciej Wozniak.

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

W dniu 18.10.2024 o 15:03, Python pisze:

Le 18/10/2024 à 13:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard

We have  about 20 different times mentioned
here. Is any of them required by trees to grow
and fade?

Would the trees stop growing if Barycentric
Coordinate Time didn't exist? How about
Terrestrial Dynamical Time?

You are confusing denotation with what is denoted.

This is quite unexpected coming from one of the
best logician Humanity ever had (allegedly).

You are fabricating and spitting instead answerring
the question.
Which remains - Is any of them required by trees
to grow and fade?
This is quite expected from a piece of relativistic
shit.

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

Den 19.10.2024 02:24, skrev rhertz:

The ONLY VALID TIME FOR HUMANS is the one shown in the main page of
BIPM, and count 86,400 seconds for an earthly day.

And that time is UTC.

It is 86,400 seconds in a _mean_ solar day.

https://www.bipm.org/en/

All the public and private institutions in the ENTIRE WORLD agree with
this time, and it has happened for more than 100 years. For the last 50 years, the use of atomic clocks made it more precise, and digital
networks made it available worldwide for the last 25 years (baseband
fiber optics transmissions). Since 2002, sustained (as comparison and distribution) by networks of satellite's GNSS.

Relativists, go home!

You do know that UTC clocks are _not_ synchronous in
the ground frame, don't you? Or don't you?

UTC clocks are synchronous in the ECI frame.
That means that if you have two UTC clocks at different
longitude and connect them with an optic fibre, then,
measured with the two UTC clocks, the light will use different
time to go between the clocks in the two opposite directions.

This phenomenon is well known, and is built into the software
of the digital networks that keep the TAI and UTC clocks synchronous.

So you see, Richard, relativity is in everyday, practical use
in the real world.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

W dniu 19.10.2024 o 13:28, Paul B. Andersen pisze:

Den 19.10.2024 02:24, skrev rhertz:

The ONLY VALID TIME FOR HUMANS is the one shown in the main page of
BIPM, and count 86,400 seconds for an earthly day.

And that time is UTC.

It is 86,400 seconds in a _mean_ solar day.

https://www.bipm.org/en/

All the public and private institutions in the ENTIRE WORLD agree with
this time, and it has happened for more than 100 years. For the last 50
years, the use of atomic clocks made it more precise, and digital
networks made it available worldwide for the last 25 years (baseband
fiber optics transmissions). Since 2002, sustained (as comparison and
distribution) by networks of satellite's GNSS.

Relativists, go home!

You do know that UTC clocks are _not_ synchronous in
the ground frame

And that's because an idiot is asserting.

UTC clocks are synchronous in the ECI frame.
That means

No, it doesn't.

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