On 2/21/2024 2:17 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
Merci de ne pas rรฉpondre n'importe quoi ร mes posts.
Why are you asking the janitor to clean your toilets for free?
On 2/23/2024 4:35 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
It presupposes the speed of light as invariant: I do not suppose it, I
demonstrate it.
No, Einstein's paper postulates that the speed of light is constant in
one single frame. He first shows (proves) that it is constant in all (inertial) frames. This is usually skipped over in SR discussions which
often start with the speed of light being constant in all frames.
this former CIA intel analyst say unprovoked, "๐ฉ๐ถ๐ฐ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฎ_๐ก๐๐น๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ๐๐ธ๐" page
08:24 lol ๐๐ก๐ง๐๐_๐ฅ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ-๐๐ผ๐ต๐ป๐๐ผ๐ป_&_๐ ๐ฐ๐๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป_-_๐จ๐ธ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐ฒยธ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฒ๐น_๐๐ป๐๐ฒ๐น_๐ช๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฝ
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/l6ZzuoT3njkS very funny indeed.
Cute you are, aren't you Hanson.
Oga Shiganori Yoshikawa wrote:
here's the proof Einstine's relativity ๐ถ๐_๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฝ...
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cannot even
spell Einstein correctly?
Am 24.02.2024 um 14:06 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Saying that two points A and B exist in perfect synchrony, that is to
say constantly exist at the same present moment, does not make sense in
special relativity (or at least, it should not).
Points are actually timeless (in euclidean space), because 'point'
denotes a location. And locations do not move (by definition of
'location').
Oga Shiganori Yoshikawa wrote:
Physfitfreak wrote:
here's the proof Einstine's relativity ๐ถ๐_๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฝ...
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cannot even
spell Einstein correctly?
On 2/24/2024 9:51 PM, palsing wrote:
Oga Shiganori Yoshikawa wrote:
Physfitfreak wrote:
here's the proof Einstine's relativity ๐ถ๐_๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฝ...
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cannot even
spell Einstein correctly?
That's the nymshifting troll. Emphasis on 'troll'.
On 2/24/2024 9:51 PM, palsing wrote:
Oga Shiganori Yoshikawa wrote:
Physfitfreak wrote:
here's the proof Einstine's relativity ๐ถ๐_๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฝ...
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cannot even
spell Einstein correctly?
That's the nymshifting troll. Emphasis on 'troll'.
On 2/25/2024 11:10 AM, Maria Komรกromi Forgรกcs wrote:
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ_๐๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น_๐ฆ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฒ_๐ฆ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป_๐ถ๐_๐น๐ผ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ_๐ถ๐ป_๐๐ผ๐๐๐๐ผ๐ป,_๐ง๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/L9tgU68SUHQw
Of course they have an identical double in their labs, in case something happens up there and they would have to improvise.
You're an idiot, Hanson. And you idiots savor and find each other too. Problem is, you're too stupid to see how others look at you idiots.
I hope at least you're getting paid by my tax money, you _pest_. And
it's of course all clear what else you do with your time. Getting it in
the ass.
If you had decency, you'd hang yourself, Hanson. Decent individuals of
your creed jump down high story buildings.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ_๐๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น_๐ฆ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฒ_๐ฆ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป_๐ถ๐_๐น๐ผ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ_๐ถ๐ป_๐๐ผ๐๐๐๐ผ๐ป,_๐ง๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/L9tgU68SUHQw
Of course they have an identical double in their labs, in case something happens up there and they would have to improvise
For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master
clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence. But no such
thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local and
clocks depend on the local environment and count something there.
Thomas Heger wrote:
For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master
clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence. But no such
thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local and
clocks depend on the local environment and count something there.
actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference in relativity
you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny indeed. As for
instance
Am 26.02.2024 um 21:57 schrieb Piotr Babchenko Bakulev:
Thomas Heger wrote:
For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master
clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence. But no such
thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local and clocks
depend on the local environment and count something there.
actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference in
relativity you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny
indeed. As for instance
Sure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact.
But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is
required for the increase of entropy in the first place.
Thomas Heger wrote:No, because both terms are related, but not equal.
Am 26.02.2024 um 21:57 schrieb Piotr Babchenko Bakulev:
Thomas Heger wrote:
For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master
clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence. But no such
thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local and clocks
depend on the local environment and count something there.
actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference in
relativity you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny
indeed. As for instance
Sure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact.
But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is
required for the increase of entropy in the first place.
the Entropy ๐๐ฆ time. Please stop ๐ป๐ผ๐ undrestanding tensors. Look at this:
actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference inSure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact.
relativity you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny
indeed. As for instance
But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is
required for the increase of entropy in the first place.
the Entropy ๐๐ฆ time. Please stop ๐ป๐ผ๐ undrestanding tensors. Look at
this:
No, because both terms are related, but not equal.
Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
Heat dissipates, hence entropy increases. But that is not time.
Thomas Heger wrote:
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
Several years ago, Franz Heymann made a good start in defining the term.
The following represents my feeble attempt to improve on his definition.
I invite others to make corrections and enhancements to what I have written here.
A "clock" is an artifact (possibly including natural components) comprising
a component (A) that undergoes cyclical changes of state, and a monitoring component (B) that indicates each return of the cyclically varying
component to a particular state of its cycle. A "useful clock" will optionally include a component (C) that scales the output of component (B)
so as to mark off units of time that have greater utility and/or which
will allow the clock output to be compared with that of other clocks.
Component (A) must be self-contained in that its period of repetitive
cycling must not be dependent on the application of external forces or
timing signals. (However, it is not necessary that the clock be self- contained in its power requirements.)
If one has a large ensemble of "useful clocks" in a common location at
the same gravitational potential and in the same state of motion, the
"good clocks" among the ensemble may be distinguished by how closely
their timing outputs maintain a constant ratio with the timing average
of the ensemble. Successive winnowing of "good clocks" enables the
selection of "better clocks".
A "better clock" in which the period of its repetitive cycling component
is set by a fundamental physical process that may be independently and locally reproduced by individuals well-versed in the art of clock
manufacture is a "candidate standard clock". "Candidate standard clocks"
are not broadly tunable. Variations in timing from one "candidate
standard clock" to another arise depend on the quality factor (Q factor)
of their repetitive cycling components and the quality of the
instrumentation that monitors their cycles.
Given different classes of "candidate standard clock" distinguished by the physical processes that they monitor as their central timing components,
one or another class may be designated, for a time, as a "standard clock".
By the above definition,
1) A wall clock plugged into 50 or 60 Hz mains is not a "clock" because it
is dependent on the externally generated mains frequency for its timing.
2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling of the pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
3) Stonehenge is not a "clock". However, the Stonehenge-Earth-Sun system comprises not just a "clock", but a "useful clock" that had utility in
timing religious ceremonies and crop plantings.
4) Hourglasses and water clocks are not "clocks".
5) A clock based on a quartz crystal, although potentially highly stable, cannot be a "candidate standard clock" because the frequency of
crystal oscillation is not set by a fundamental physical process, but
rather depends on details of how the crystal is cut.
6) Although a clock based on, say, the period of a millisecond pulsar may
be an "extremely good clock", it cannot be a "candidate standard clock" because its central timing component cannot be locally reproduced by individuals in different areas of the universe. Individuals in different states of motion and in differing gravitational potentials will observe
that the pulsar period, although highly stable, will not correlate
exactly with times they they measure on "local standard clocks".
Furthermore, the phase of the received signal depends on one's location
with respect to the distant timing component, which varies with the
Earth's rotation, its orbit around the Sun, the Sun's travel through
the galaxy, etc.
Suggestions for improving on my attempt at defining different types of
clock are welcome!
Den 29.02.2024 17:54, skrev ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
Thomas Heger wrote:
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the
underlying frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
Several years ago, Franz Heymann made a good start in defining the
term. The following represents my feeble attempt to improve on his
definition. I invite others to make corrections and enhancements to
what I have written
here.
A "clock" is an artifact (possibly including natural components)
comprising
a component (A) that undergoes cyclical changes of state, and a
monitoring
component (B) that indicates each return of the cyclically varying
component to a particular state of its cycle. A "useful clock" will
optionally include a component (C) that scales the output of component
(B)
so as to mark off units of time that have greater utility and/or which
will allow the clock output to be compared with that of other clocks.
Component (A) must be self-contained in that its period of repetitive
cycling must not be dependent on the application of external forces or
timing signals. (However, it is not necessary that the clock be self-
contained in its power requirements.)
If one has a large ensemble of "useful clocks" in a common location at
the same gravitational potential and in the same state of motion, the
"good clocks" among the ensemble may be distinguished by how closely
their timing outputs maintain a constant ratio with the timing average
of the ensemble. Successive winnowing of "good clocks" enables the
selection of "better clocks".
A "better clock" in which the period of its repetitive cycling component
is set by a fundamental physical process that may be independently and
locally reproduced by individuals well-versed in the art of clock
manufacture is a "candidate standard clock". "Candidate standard clocks"
are not broadly tunable. Variations in timing from one "candidate
standard clock" to another arise depend on the quality factor (Q factor)
of their repetitive cycling components and the quality of the
instrumentation that monitors their cycles.
Given different classes of "candidate standard clock" distinguished by
the
physical processes that they monitor as their central timing components,
one or another class may be designated, for a time, as a "standard
clock".
By the above definition,
1) A wall clock plugged into 50 or 60 Hz mains is not a "clock"
because it
is dependent on the externally generated mains frequency for its timing.
2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling
of the
pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
So Newton had no clock! :-)
Thomas Heger wrote:
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling of the pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 29.02.2024 17:54, skrev ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
Several years ago, Franz Heymann made a good start in defining the
term. The following represents my feeble attempt to improve on his
definition. I invite others to make corrections and enhancements to
what I have written
here.
A "clock" is an artifact (possibly including natural components)
comprising
a component (A) that undergoes cyclical changes of state, and a
monitoring
component (B) that indicates each return of the cyclically varying
component to a particular state of its cycle. A "useful clock" will
optionally include a component (C) that scales the output of
component (B)
so as to mark off units of time that have greater utility and/or which
will allow the clock output to be compared with that of other clocks.
Component (A) must be self-contained in that its period of repetitive
cycling must not be dependent on the application of external forces or
timing signals. (However, it is not necessary that the clock be self-
contained in its power requirements.)
If one has a large ensemble of "useful clocks" in a common location at
the same gravitational potential and in the same state of motion, the
"good clocks" among the ensemble may be distinguished by how closely
their timing outputs maintain a constant ratio with the timing average
of the ensemble. Successive winnowing of "good clocks" enables the
selection of "better clocks".
A "better clock" in which the period of its repetitive cycling component >>> is set by a fundamental physical process that may be independently and
locally reproduced by individuals well-versed in the art of clock
manufacture is a "candidate standard clock". "Candidate standard clocks" >>> are not broadly tunable. Variations in timing from one "candidate
standard clock" to another arise depend on the quality factor (Q factor) >>> of their repetitive cycling components and the quality of the
instrumentation that monitors their cycles.
Given different classes of "candidate standard clock" distinguished
by the
physical processes that they monitor as their central timing components, >>> one or another class may be designated, for a time, as a "standard
clock".
By the above definition,
1) A wall clock plugged into 50 or 60 Hz mains is not a "clock"
because it
is dependent on the externally generated mains frequency for its timing.
2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling
of the
pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
So Newton had no clock! :-)
Not according to this definition of "clock".
A pendulum + Earth system, however, would together constitute
a "clock".
The Royal Observatory at Greenwich had pendulum clocks as
standard clocks at least until 1939.
ย From 1853 electrical sensors detected the motion of the pendulum
and sent the signal via wire to repeaters in the observatory
and via telegraph to other cities (later to BBC).
Stationary pendulum clocks can be very precise clocks because
gravitation is an environmental parameter that is pretty constant.
Temperature changes can be compensated for.
No other mechanical clock can compete with it.
The pinnacle of pendulum clock design may have been the
Shortt-synchronome clocks, whose stability reached the
fractional second per year level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortt%E2%80%93Synchronome_clock
But of course it is can't be used if not stationary.
Pendulum clocks are "clocks" according to your definition above,
even if we today would prefer other types of clocks for most
applications.
As explained above, a combination of pendulum clock + Earth by my
definition would constitute a "clock". :-)
Also, by my definition, no matter how precise a pendulum + Earth
clock may be, it cannot be a "candidate standard clock" because
two clockmakers cannot independently construct clocks that will
beat together at the same frequency, since their frequencies are
not set by a fundamental physical process. The two clocks must be
carefully tuned to match each other.
In my proposed classification scheme, no "candidate standard
clocks" existed until the first ammonia maser. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser#History
Yes,I agree to the above, a pendulum clock cannot be a
"candidate standard clock" today, only atomic clocks can
be that, because the definition of the time unit is based
on a natural atomic constant.
On 2/29/2024 11:54 AM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling
of the
pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
To be fair, pendulum clocks (and water clocks and hourglasses) which
depend on the force of gravity really need to include the mass of the
earth as "part" of the clock, as the gravitational force is necessary
for the operation of the clock.
On 2/29/2024 11:54 AM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling of
the pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
To be fair, pendulum clocks (and water clocks and hourglasses) which
depend on the force of gravity really need to include the mass of the
earth as "part" of the clock, as the gravitational force is necessary
for the operation of the clock. At first this definition massively fails
the transportability requirement but actually less so since transporting
the clock between two regions of constant gravity works.
Not according to this definition of "clock".
A pendulum + Earth system, however, would together constitute a
"clock".
So a stationary pendulum clock on Earth is "a clock".
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
My only point was that a pendulum clock is still a "clock".
We do not really disagree, do we?
No, of course not. Merely proposing a revised classification
scheme for various entities called "clock" does not in any way alter the underlying physics.
Thomas Heger wrote:
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
Am 29.02.2024 um 17:54 schrieb ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes
and seconds. But that's not time neither (it's a measure).
So: time and what clocks say are related, but are not equal.
Some mechanism will most likely exist, which pushes time further. But we
know for certain, that this is not done by watches.
Am 29.02.2024 um 17:54 schrieb ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
Thomas Heger wrote:
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes
and seconds.
But that's not time neither (it's a measure).
=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
W dniu 05.03.2024 oย 21:26, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 29.02.2024 um 17:54 schrieb ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
Thomas Heger wrote:
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which >>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and >>> the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying >>> frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes and seconds.
But that's not time neither (it's a measure).
Wrong. Yes, that's - exactly - time. Why not,
doesn't match your mystical delusions? It's not
obligged to.
if one clock is running slow,
and the other clock fast...
which one is the real time?
answer: neither one.
even a sundial does not have the real time...
yous people let clocks
run your life and yous don't even know
that the real time is?
oh, i'm late...i gotta go.
is 't' a number?
numbers don't exist.
W dniu 05.03.2024 oย 21:26, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 29.02.2024 um 17:54 schrieb ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
Thomas Heger wrote:
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying >>> frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes and seconds.
But that's not time neither (it's a measure).
Wrong. Yes, that's - exactly - time. Why not,
doesn't match your mystical delusions? It's not
obligged to.
The Starmaker wrote:
=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
W dniu 05.03.2024 oย 21:26, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 29.02.2024 um 17:54 schrieb ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
Thomas Heger wrote:
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which >>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and >>> the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of >>> certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same >>> process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly >> debated on these forums: What is a clock?
A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes
and seconds.
But that's not time neither (it's a measure).
Wrong. Yes, that's - exactly - time. Why not,
doesn't match your mystical delusions? It's not
obligged to.
if one clock is running slow,
and the other clock fast...
which one is the real time?
answer: neither one.
even a sundial does not have the real time...
yous people let clocks
run your life and yous don't even know
that the real time is?
oh, i'm late...i gotta go.
is 't' a number?
numbers don't exist.
i got a good idea..
throw away all
your clocks.
No more time.
if you see the sun
moving around...
that is all
it is doing...moving
around.
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
W dniu 05.03.2024 oย 21:26, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 29.02.2024 um 17:54 schrieb ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
Thomas Heger wrote:
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of >>> certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether >>> these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same >>> process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly >> debated on these forums: What is a clock?
A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes
and seconds.
But that's not time neither (it's a measure).
Wrong. Yes, that's - exactly - time. Why not,
doesn't match your mystical delusions? It's not
obligged to.
if one clock is running slow,
and the other clock fast...
which one is the real time?
answer: neither one.
even a sundial does not have the real time...
yous people let clocks
run your life and yous don't even know
that the real time is?
oh, i'm late...i gotta go.
is 't' a number?
numbers don't exist.
i got a good idea..
throw away all
your clocks.
No more time.
if you see the sun
moving around...
that is all
it is doing...moving
around.
What time is it ...now?
It's always Now.
If a clock moves one second
it tells you the time now..
next second
it tells you the time now..
next second
it tells you the time now..
next second
it tells you the time now..
it's always...Now.
What time is it ...now?
it's always...Now.
What now is it?
the second before is not now,
it's in the past..it doesn't exist.
How do you measure a second before?
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
W dniu 05.03.2024 oย 21:26, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 29.02.2024 um 17:54 schrieb ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
Thomas Heger wrote:
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which >>>>>>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and >>>>>>> the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of >>>>>>> certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying >>>>>>> frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether >>>>>>> these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same >>>>>>> process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly >>>>>> debated on these forums: What is a clock?
A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes >>>>> and seconds.
But that's not time neither (it's a measure).
Wrong. Yes, that's - exactly - time. Why not,
doesn't match your mystical delusions? It's not
obligged to.
if one clock is running slow,
and the other clock fast...
which one is the real time?
answer: neither one.
even a sundial does not have the real time...
yous people let clocks
run your life and yous don't even know
that the real time is?
oh, i'm late...i gotta go.
is 't' a number?
numbers don't exist.
i got a good idea..
throw away all
your clocks.
No more time.
if you see the sun
moving around...
that is all
it is doing...moving
around.
What time is it ...now?
It's always Now.
If a clock moves one second
it tells you the time now..
next second
it tells you the time now..
next second
it tells you the time now..
next second
it tells you the time now..
it's always...Now.
What time is it ...now?
it's always...Now.
What now is it?
the second before is not now,
it's in the past..it doesn't exist.
How do you measure a second before?
Am 06.03.2024 um 08:44 schrieb The Starmaker:
the second before is not now, it's in the past..it doesn't exist.The flow of time is assumed to be constant, hence constant frequency processes are assumed to exist. But relativity claims, this is not the
How do you measure a second before?
case and time can shrink and expand. But how could we know, if time runs slower, if all clocks also run slower????
Am 06.03.2024 um 08:44 schrieb The Starmaker:
[...]
The flow of time is assumed to be constant,
hence constant frequency processes are
assumed to exist.
The flow of time is assumed to be constant,
hence constant frequency processes are
assumed to exist.
On 3/6/2024 3:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
The flow of time is assumed to be constant, hence constant frequency
processes are assumed to exist.
Once there was a rubber sheeting manufacturer with inconsistent
equipment.
Am 06.03.2024 um 08:44 schrieb The Starmaker:
The Starmaker wrote:The flow of time is assumed to be constant,
The Starmaker wrote:
=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
W dniu 05.03.2024 oร 21:26, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 29.02.2024 um 17:54 schrieb ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
Thomas Heger wrote:
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about >>>>>>>> which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour >>>>>>>> and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of >>>>>>>> certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the
underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether >>>>>>>> these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same >>>>>>>> process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly >>>>>>> debated on these forums: What is a clock?
A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours,
minutes
and seconds.
But that's not time neither (it's a measure).
Wrong. Yes, that's - exactlyย - time. Why not,
doesn't match your mystical delusions? It's not
obligged to.
if one clock is running slow,
and the other clock fast...
which one is the real time?
answer: neither one.
even a sundial does not have the real time...
yous people let clocks
run your life and yous don't even know
that the real time is?
oh, i'm late...i gotta go.
is 't' a number?
numbers don't exist.
i got a good idea..
throw away all
your clocks.
No more time.
if you see the sun
moving around...
that is all
it is doing...moving
around.
What time is it ...now?
It's always Now.
If a clock moves one second
it tells you the time now..
next second
it tells you the time now..
next second
it tells you the time now..
next second
it tells you the time now..
it's always...Now.
What time is it ...now?
it's always...Now.
What now is it?
the second before is not now,
it's in the past..it doesn't exist.
How do you measure a second before?
I personally support the idea of local time, which is always flowing
forward in the local environment, but which is not universal.
=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
W dniu 05.03.2024 oร 21:26, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 29.02.2024 um 17:54 schrieb ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
Thomas Heger wrote:
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which >>>>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and >>>>> the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying >>>>> frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes >>> and seconds.
But that's not time neither (it's a measure).
Wrong. Yes, that's - exactly - time. Why not,
doesn't match your mystical delusions? It's not
obligged to.
if one clock is running slow,
and the other clock fast...
which one is the real time?
A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
On 3/6/2024 1:44 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
No more time.
Did you get kicked out of eternal september?
You'd better go back there if you can, cause paganini is revealing your posting account regardless of what nickname you use. You're blowing your cover.
Poor choice. I thought you were smarter than that.
Physfitfreak wrote:
On 3/6/2024 1:44 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
No more time.
Did you get kicked out of eternal september?
You'd better go back there if you can, cause paganini is revealing your posting account regardless of what nickname you use. You're blowing your cover.
Poor choice. I thought you were smarter than that.
I don't have a cover. I'm not anonymous . I don't hide my IP or anything
of that nature.
Den 05.03.2024 21:26, skrev Thomas Heger:
A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The Starmaker wrote:
Physfitfreak wrote:
On 3/6/2024 1:44 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
No more time.
Did you get kicked out of eternal september?
You'd better go back there if you can, cause paganini is revealing your posting account regardless of what nickname you use. You're blowing your cover.
Poor choice. I thought you were smarter than that.
I don't have a cover. I'm not anonymous . I don't hide my IP or anything
of that nature.
Here is another newsserver
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Physfitfreak wrote:
On 3/6/2024 1:44 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
No more time.
Did you get kicked out of eternal september?
You'd better go back there if you can, cause paganini is revealing your posting account regardless of what nickname you use. You're blowing your
cover.
Poor choice. I thought you were smarter than that.
I don't have a cover. I'm not anonymous . I don't hide my IP or anything of that nature.
Here is another newsserver
Here is another newsserver
W dniu 06.03.2024 o 09:14, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 06.03.2024 um 08:44 schrieb The Starmaker:
The Starmaker wrote:The flow of time is assumed to be constant,
The Starmaker wrote:
=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
W dniu 05.03.2024 oร 21:26, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 29.02.2024 um 17:54 schrieb ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
Thomas Heger wrote:
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about >>>>>>>>> which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the
hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of >>>>>>>>> certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the
underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether >>>>>>>>> these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same >>>>>>>>> process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been
repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, >>>>>>> minutes
and seconds.
But that's not time neither (it's a measure).
Wrong. Yes, that's - exactly - time. Why not,
doesn't match your mystical delusions? It's not
obligged to.
if one clock is running slow,
and the other clock fast...
which one is the real time?
answer: neither one.
even a sundial does not have the real time...
yous people let clocks
run your life and yous don't even know
that the real time is?
oh, i'm late...i gotta go.
is 't' a number?
numbers don't exist.
i got a good idea..
throw away all
your clocks.
No more time.
if you see the sun
moving around...
that is all
it is doing...moving
around.
What time is it ...now?
It's always Now.
If a clock moves one second
it tells you the time now..
next second
it tells you the time now..
next second
it tells you the time now..
next second
it tells you the time now..
it's always...Now.
What time is it ...now?
it's always...Now.
What now is it?
the second before is not now,
it's in the past..it doesn't exist.
How do you measure a second before?
Assumed by whom?
It usually is, but exceptions happen.
I personally support the idea of local time, which is always flowing
forward in the local environment, but which is not universal.
You may support it, it's still stupid.
The flow of time is assumed to be constant,
Assumed by whom?
It usually is, but exceptions happen.
I personally support the idea of local time, which is always flowing
forward in the local environment, but which is not universal.
You may support it, it's still stupid.
I needed this assumption (which stems imho from Poincarรฉ) for my 'book':
W dniu 07.03.2024 o 07:57, Thomas Heger pisze:
The flow of time is assumed to be constant,
Assumed by whom?
It usually is, but exceptions happen.
I personally support the idea of local time, which is always flowing
forward in the local environment, but which is not universal.
You may support it, it's still stupid.
I needed this assumption (which stems imho from Poincarรฉ) for my 'book':
And GPS staff needed the opposite assumption
for their system to work. What do you find
more important - your "book" or working
GPS?
Am 07.03.2024 um 15:41 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 07.03.2024 o 07:57, Thomas Heger pisze:
And GPS staff needed the opposite assumptionThe flow of time is assumed to be constant,
Assumed by whom?
It usually is, but exceptions happen.
I personally support the idea of local time, which is always flowing >>>>> forward in the local environment, but which is not universal.
You may support it, it's still stupid.
I needed this assumption (which stems imho from Poincarรฉ) for my 'book': >>
for their system to work. What do you find
more important - your "book" or working
GPS?
No, because the GPS does not violate my assumptions.
GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the same 'time-domain' (uses Earth time).
But remote celestial object do not necessarily do, and may eventually
use an axis of time, which has an angle towards our time.
W dniu 08.03.2024 o 09:12, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 07.03.2024 um 15:41 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 07.03.2024 o 07:57, Thomas Heger pisze:
The flow of time is assumed to be constant,
Assumed by whom?
It usually is, but exceptions happen.
I personally support the idea of local time, which is always flowing >>>>>> forward in the local environment, but which is not universal.
You may support it, it's still stupid.
I needed this assumption (which stems imho from Poincarรฉ) for my
'book':
And GPS staff needed the opposite assumption
for their system to work. What do you find
more important - your "book" or working
GPS?
No, because the GPS does not violate my assumptions.
Yes, it does. You may pretend it doesn't - it doesn't
impress me the slightest.
GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the same
'time-domain' (uses Earth time).
What is the range of Earth time, then?
But remote celestial object do not necessarily do, and may eventually
use an axis of time, which has an angle towards our time.
What kind of object does use time?
Does a rock do? What for?
Am 08.03.2024 um 10:10 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the sameWhat is the range of Earth time, then?
'time-domain' (uses Earth time).
If timer is local (opposite to 'universal'), than Earth time is valid on Earth or nearby. In other locations even the direction of time does not
need to be the same. This means: there might be regions of the universe, where time runs backwards from our perspective.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 08.03.2024 um 10:10 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the sameWhat is the range of Earth time, then?
'time-domain' (uses Earth time).
If timer is local (opposite to 'universal'), than Earth time is valid on
Earth or nearby. In other locations even the direction of time does not
need to be the same. This means: there might be regions of the universe,
where time runs backwards from our perspective.
there are no offsets in time, hence Entropy, my friend. You must be
talking about an unknown, illogic domain or manifold. You don't undrestand mathematics that much, do you?? You stupid gearmons.
Am 09.03.2024 um 09:04 schrieb Bogdan Guleichik Balagul:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 08.03.2024 um 10:10 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the sameWhat is the range of Earth time, then?
'time-domain' (uses Earth time).
If timer is local (opposite to 'universal'), than Earth time is valid
on Earth or nearby. In other locations even the direction of time does
not need to be the same. This means: there might be regions of the
universe,
where time runs backwards from our perspective.
there are no offsets in time, hence Entropy, my friend. You must be
talking about an unknown, illogic domain or manifold. You don't
undrestand mathematics that much, do you?? You stupid gearmons.
???
If I understand you correct (what is difficult), you try to argue, that entropy is the reason for time per se.
Well,possibly this is true, possibly not.
I think, that time is based on a process of counting something, which
occurs always with the same frequency.
Am 08.03.2024 um 10:10 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 08.03.2024 o 09:12, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 07.03.2024 um 15:41 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 07.03.2024 o 07:57, Thomas Heger pisze:
The flow of time is assumed to be constant,
Assumed by whom?
It usually is, but exceptions happen.
I personally support the idea of local time, which is always flowing >>>>>>> forward in the local environment, but which is not universal.
You may support it, it's still stupid.
I needed this assumption (which stems imho from Poincarรฉ) for my
'book':
And GPS staff needed the opposite assumption
for their system to work. What do you find
more important - your "book" or working
GPS?
No, because the GPS does not violate my assumptions.
Yes, it does. You may pretend it doesn't - it doesn't
impress me the slightest.
GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the same
'time-domain' (uses Earth time).
What is the range of Earth time, then?
If timer is local (opposite to 'universal'), than Earth time is valid on Earth or nearby.
What kind of object does use time?
I regard matter as 'timelike stable patterns'.
GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the same
'time-domain' (uses Earth time).
What is the range of Earth time, then?
If timer is local (opposite to 'universal'), than Earth time is valid
on Earth or nearby.
So - for every observation made from Earth or nearby?
What kind of object does use time?
I regard matter as 'timelike stable patterns'.
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
Am 10.03.2024 um 11:35 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the same
'time-domain' (uses Earth time).
What is the range of Earth time, then?
If timer is local (opposite to 'universal'), than Earth time is valid
on Earth or nearby.
So - for every observation made from Earth or nearby?
No: time is local everywhere.
What kind of object does use time?
I regard matter as 'timelike stable patterns'.
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects have to fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain 'axis of
time')
W dniu 12.03.2024 o 09:30, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 10.03.2024 um 11:35 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the same >>>>>> 'time-domain' (uses Earth time).
What is the range of Earth time, then?
If timer is local (opposite to 'universal'), than Earth time is valid
on Earth or nearby.
So - for every observation made from Earth or nearby?
No: time is local everywhere.
And an observation made from Earth is made from Earth.
What kind of object does use time?
I regard matter as 'timelike stable patterns'.
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects have to
fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain 'axis of time')
So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
time - times, or are they something else?
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects have to
fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain 'axis of
time')
So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
time - times, or are they something else?
I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' (of/in spacetime).
Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of atoms.
A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would alllow a
A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would alllow a certain relatively simple mechanism to explain a variety of different
things.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 09.03.2024 um 09:04 schrieb Bogdan Guleichik Balagul:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 08.03.2024 um 10:10 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the same >>>>>> 'time-domain' (uses Earth time).What is the range of Earth time, then?
If timer is local (opposite to 'universal'), than Earth time is valid
on Earth or nearby. In other locations even the direction of time does >>>> not need to be the same. This means: there might be regions of the
universe,
where time runs backwards from our perspective.
there are no offsets in time, hence Entropy, my friend. You must be
talking about an unknown, illogic domain or manifold. You don't
undrestand mathematics that much, do you?? You stupid gearmons.
???
If I understand you correct (what is difficult), you try to argue, that
entropy is the reason for time per se.
Well,possibly this is true, possibly not.
I think, that time is based on a process of counting something, which
occurs always with the same frequency.
you don't undrestand, as said above, it's because you are uneducated and stupid. There is no ห๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐๐ถ๐ฏ๐น๐_๐๐ต๐ถ๐_๐ถ๐_๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ,_๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐๐ถ๐ฏ๐น๐_๐ป๐ผ๐ห in physics. Idiot. That
statement does NOT exists.
stupid. There is no ห๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐๐ถ๐ฏ๐น๐_๐๐ต๐ถ๐_๐ถ๐_๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ,_๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐๐ถ๐ฏ๐น๐_๐ป๐ผ๐ห in physics.
Idiot. That statement does NOT exists.
No, such a statement does exist, because I had written 'possibly this is true, possibly not'. The actual fact is unknown, at least by me, hence
we are allowed to speculate. Possibly time has to do with entropy,
possibly not. If you want an answer to this riddle ('what time actually is'), you need to find it yourself.
Thomas Heger wrote:
stupid. There is no ห๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐๐ถ๐ฏ๐น๐_๐๐ต๐ถ๐_๐ถ๐_๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ,_๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐๐ถ๐ฏ๐น๐_๐ป๐ผ๐ห in physics.
Idiot. That statement does NOT exists.
No, such a statement does exist, because I had written 'possibly this is
true, possibly not'. The actual fact is unknown, at least by me, hence
we are allowed to speculate. Possibly time has to do with entropy,
possibly not. If you want an answer to this riddle ('what time actually
is'), you need to find it yourself.
not in physics, my friend. Try ๐ฃ๐๐ฌ_๐๐๐, ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ etc, but that's stupid. The
time used in physics is pretty well defined, ๐๐ก๐_๐จ๐ฆ๐๐, by consent. You
W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects have to >>>> fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain 'axis of
time')
So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
time - times, or are they something else?
I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' (of/in
spacetime).
Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of atoms.
A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would alllow a
Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us???
Who or what is using "time" concept here?
So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
are they something else?
Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:??
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects have to >>>>> fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain 'axis of
time')
So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
time - times, or are they something else?
I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' (of/in
spacetime).
Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of atoms.
A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would alllow a
Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
Who or what is using "time" conceptย here?
Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
are they something else?
Time zones are something else.
not in physics, my friend. Try ๐ฃ๐๐ฌ_๐๐๐, ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ etc, but that's
stupid. The time used in physics is pretty well defined, ๐๐ก๐_๐จ๐ฆ๐๐, by
consent. You
I'm not quite certain, what you are trying to say.
In physics time is a quantity and measured in seconds. But that does not
say very much about how long a second is and why time exists in the
first place.
W dniu 17.03.2024 oย 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:??
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects have to >>>>> fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain 'axis of >>>>> time')
So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
time - times, or are they something else?
I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' (of/in
spacetime).
Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of atoms.
A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would alllow a >>
Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
Who or what is using "time" conceptย here?
Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
So, who, or what, can use time to model?
So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
are they something else?
Time zones are something else.
Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
Are they times or are they something else?
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oร 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:??
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects have to >>>>>>> fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain 'axis of >>>>>>> time')
So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
time - times, or are they something else?
I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' (of/in >>>>> spacetime).
Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of atoms. >>>>>
A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would alllow a >>>>
Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
Who or what is using "time" conceptร here?
Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
So, who, or what, can use time to model?
So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
are they something else?
Time zones are something else.
Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
Are they times or are they something else?
Time zones are just...shadows.
The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my shadows!"
The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
W dniu 17.03.2024 oย 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oร 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:??
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects have to
fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain 'axis of >>>>>>> time')
So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
time - times, or are they something else?
I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' (of/in >>>>> spacetime).
Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of atoms. >>>>>
A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would alllow a >>>>
Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
Who or what is using "time" conceptร here?
Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
So, who, or what, can use time to model?
So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
are they something else?
Time zones are something else.
Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
Are they times or are they something else?
Time zones are just...shadows.
Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
times?
The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my shadows!"
The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oร 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oรโ 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:??
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects have to
fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain 'axis of >>>>>>>>> time')
So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
time - times, or are they something else?
I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' (of/in >>>>>>> spacetime).
Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of atoms. >>>>>>>
A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would alllow a >>>>>>
Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
Who or what is using "time" conceptรโ here?
Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
So, who, or what, can use time to model?
So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
are they something else?
Time zones are something else.
Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
Are they times or are they something else?
Time zones are just...shadows.
Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
times?
The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my shadows!" >>>
The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
If you put a sundial in one time zone...
it's shadows all the way down.
W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oร 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oรโ 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:??
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects >>>>>>>>>> have to
fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain
'axis of
time')
So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
time - times, or are they something else?
I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' >>>>>>>> (of/in
spacetime).
Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of >>>>>>>> atoms.
A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would >>>>>>>> alllow a
Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
Who or what is using "time" conceptรโ here?
Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
So, who, or what, can use time to model?
So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
are they something else?
Time zones are something else.
Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
Are they times or are they something else?
Time zones are just...shadows.
Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
times?
The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my
shadows!"
The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
If you put a sundial in one time zone...
it's shadows all the way down.
And - are zone times times or are they
something else?
Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oร 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oรโ 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:??
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects >>>>>>>>>>> have to
fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain >>>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
time')
So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
time - times, or are they something else?
I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' >>>>>>>>> (of/in
spacetime).
Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of >>>>>>>>> atoms.
A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would >>>>>>>>> alllow a
Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
Who or what is using "time" conceptรโย here?
Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
So, who, or what, can use time to model?
So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
are they something else?
Time zones are something else.
Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
Are they times or are they something else?
Time zones are just...shadows.
Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
times?
The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my
shadows!"
The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
If you put a sundial in one time zone...
it's shadows all the way down.
And - are zone times times or are they
something else?
All time measures are intervals.
You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between
that event and some other event.
This measure is often called 'time'.
Time includes also dates.
a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oร 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oรโ 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:??
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects >>>>>>>>>> have to
fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain >>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
time')
So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
time - times, or are they something else?
I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' >>>>>>>> (of/in
spacetime).
Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of >>>>>>>> atoms.
A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would >>>>>>>> alllow a
Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
Who or what is using "time" conceptรโ here?
Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
So, who, or what, can use time to model?
So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
are they something else?
Time zones are something else.
Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
Are they times or are they something else?
Time zones are just...shadows.
Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
times?
The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my
shadows!"
The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
If you put a sundial in one time zone...
it's shadows all the way down.
And - are zone times times or are they
something else?
All time measures are intervals.
You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between
that event and some other event.
This measure is often called 'time'.
Time includes also dates. Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is
a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
To the days we add hours, minutes and seconds (and occasionally
fractions of seconds) and call that 'time'.
But this time has nothing to do with sun-dials, because Christ was not
born 24 times on a single day.
TH
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oร 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oรโ 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:??
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects >>>>>>>>>> have to
fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain >>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
time')
So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
time - times, or are they something else?
I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' >>>>>>>> (of/in
spacetime).
Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of >>>>>>>> atoms.
A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would >>>>>>>> alllow a
Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
Who or what is using "time" conceptรโ here?
Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
So, who, or what, can use time to model?
So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
are they something else?
Time zones are something else.
Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
Are they times or are they something else?
Time zones are just...shadows.
Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
times?
The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my
shadows!"
The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
If you put a sundial in one time zone...
it's shadows all the way down.
And - are zone times times or are they
something else?
All time measures are intervals.
You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between that event and some other event.
This measure is often called 'time'.
Time includes also dates. Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is
a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
To the days we add hours, minutes and seconds (and occasionally
fractions of seconds) and call that 'time'.
But this time has nothing to do with sun-dials, because Christ was not
born 24 times on a single day.
TH
No, you set a certain reference point in the Shadow, and
measure the movement of the shadow.
This measure you often called 'time'.
But, it's just the sun's shadow...there is no time. It's always Now,
shadow or no shadow.
The sun is just going around and around and asks, "What are you guys
doing, it's just a shadow?!"
"Pay no mind to us Sun, we are just trying to synchronize out sundials."
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oรโ 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oรฦรขโฌลก 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:So, who, or what, can use time to model?
W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:??
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to
fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
time')
So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone >>>>>>>>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' >>>>>>>>>>> (of/in
spacetime).
Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of >>>>>>>>>>> atoms.
A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would >>>>>>>>>>> alllow a
Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
Who or what is using "time" conceptรฦรขโฌลก here?
Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell. >>>>>>>>
So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
are they something else?
Time zones are something else.
Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
Are they times or are they something else?
Time zones are just...shadows.
Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
times?
The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my >>>>>>> shadows!"
The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
If you put a sundial in one time zone...
it's shadows all the way down.
And - are zone times times or are they
something else?
All time measures are intervals.
You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between
that event and some other event.
This measure is often called 'time'.
Time includes also dates. Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is
a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
To the days we add hours, minutes and seconds (and occasionally
fractions of seconds) and call that 'time'.
But this time has nothing to do with sun-dials, because Christ was not
born 24 times on a single day.
TH
No, you set a certain reference point in the Shadow, and
measure the movement of the shadow.
This measure you often called 'time'.
But, it's just the sun's shadow...there is no time. It's always Now,
shadow or no shadow.
The sun is just going around and around and asks, "What are you guys
doing, it's just a shadow?!"
"Pay no mind to us Sun, we are just trying to synchronize out sundials."
In other words, the big hand on the clock is in fact...a mechanical
shadow.
W dniu 19.03.2024 oย 09:01, The Starmaker pisze:
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oรโ 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oรฦรขโฌลก 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:So, who, or what, can use time to model?
W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:??
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to
fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
time')
So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone >>>>>>>>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' >>>>>>>>>>> (of/in
spacetime).
Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of >>>>>>>>>>> atoms.
A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would >>>>>>>>>>> alllow a
Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
Who or what is using "time" conceptรฦรขโฌลก here?
Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell. >>>>>>>>
So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
are they something else?
Time zones are something else.
Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
Are they times or are they something else?
Time zones are just...shadows.
Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
times?
The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow. >>>>>>>
Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my >>>>>>> shadows!"
The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
If you put a sundial in one time zone...
it's shadows all the way down.
And - are zone times times or are they
something else?
All time measures are intervals.
You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between >>> that event and some other event.
This measure is often called 'time'.
Time includes also dates. Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is >>> a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
To the days we add hours, minutes and seconds (and occasionally
fractions of seconds) and call that 'time'.
But this time has nothing to do with sun-dials, because Christ was not >>> born 24 times on a single day.
TH
No, you set a certain reference point in the Shadow, and
measure the movement of the shadow.
This measure you often called 'time'.
But, it's just the sun's shadow...there is no time. It's always Now,
shadow or no shadow.
The sun is just going around and around and asks, "What are you guys
doing, it's just a shadow?!"
"Pay no mind to us Sun, we are just trying to synchronize out sundials." >>
In other words, the big hand on the clock is in fact...a mechanical
shadow.
And?
Are zone times times or are they
something else?
W dniu 19.03.2024 oย 09:01, The Starmaker pisze:
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oรโ 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oรฦรขโฌลก 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:So, who, or what, can use time to model?
W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:??
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to
fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
time')
So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone >>>>>>>>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' >>>>>>>>>>> (of/in
spacetime).
Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of >>>>>>>>>>> atoms.
A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would >>>>>>>>>>> alllow a
Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
Who or what is using "time" conceptรฦรขโฌลก here?
Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell. >>>>>>>>
So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
are they something else?
Time zones are something else.
Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
Are they times or are they something else?
Time zones are just...shadows.
Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
times?
The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow. >>>>>>>
Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my >>>>>>> shadows!"
The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
If you put a sundial in one time zone...
it's shadows all the way down.
And - are zone times times or are they
something else?
All time measures are intervals.
You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between >>> that event and some other event.
This measure is often called 'time'.
Time includes also dates. Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is >>> a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
To the days we add hours, minutes and seconds (and occasionally
fractions of seconds) and call that 'time'.
But this time has nothing to do with sun-dials, because Christ was not >>> born 24 times on a single day.
TH
No, you set a certain reference point in the Shadow, and
measure the movement of the shadow.
This measure you often called 'time'.
But, it's just the sun's shadow...there is no time. It's always Now,
shadow or no shadow.
The sun is just going around and around and asks, "What are you guys
doing, it's just a shadow?!"
"Pay no mind to us Sun, we are just trying to synchronize out sundials." >>
In other words, the big hand on the clock is in fact...a mechanical
shadow.
And?
Are zone times times or are they
something else?
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 19.03.2024 oร 09:01, The Starmaker pisze:
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oรฦรขโฌลก 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oรฦรโรยขรขโยฌร ยก 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:So, who, or what, can use time to model?
W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to
fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
time')
So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' >>>>>>>>>>>>> (of/in
spacetime).
Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of >>>>>>>>>>>>> atoms.
A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would >>>>>>>>>>>>> alllow a
Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
Who or what is using "time" conceptรฦรโรยขรขโยฌร ยก here? >>>>>>>>>>> ??
Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell. >>>>>>>>>>
So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
are they something else?
Time zones are something else.
Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
Are they times or are they something else?
Time zones are just...shadows.
Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
times?
The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow. >>>>>>>>>
Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my >>>>>>>>> shadows!"
The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
If you put a sundial in one time zone...
it's shadows all the way down.
And - are zone times times or are they
something else?
All time measures are intervals.
You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between >>>>> that event and some other event.
This measure is often called 'time'.
Time includes also dates. Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is >>>>> a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
To the days we add hours, minutes and seconds (and occasionally
fractions of seconds) and call that 'time'.
But this time has nothing to do with sun-dials, because Christ was not >>>>> born 24 times on a single day.
TH
No, you set a certain reference point in the Shadow, and
measure the movement of the shadow.
This measure you often called 'time'.
But, it's just the sun's shadow...there is no time. It's always Now,
shadow or no shadow.
The sun is just going around and around and asks, "What are you guys
doing, it's just a shadow?!"
"Pay no mind to us Sun, we are just trying to synchronize out sundials." >>>>
In other words, the big hand on the clock is in fact...a mechanical
shadow.
And?
Are zone times times or are they
something else?
zone times are not times...it is just the Sun's 'shadow' moving across
the face of the earth.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 19.03.2024 oร 09:01, The Starmaker pisze:
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oรฦรขโฌลก 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oรฦรโรยขรขโยฌร ยก 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:So, who, or what, can use time to model?
W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to
fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
time')
So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' >>>>>>>>>>>>> (of/in
spacetime).
Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of >>>>>>>>>>>>> atoms.
A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would >>>>>>>>>>>>> alllow a
Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
Who or what is using "time" conceptรฦรโรยขรขโยฌร ยก here? >>>>>>>>>>> ??
Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell. >>>>>>>>>>
So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
are they something else?
Time zones are something else.
Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
Are they times or are they something else?
Time zones are just...shadows.
Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
times?
The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow. >>>>>>>>>
Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my >>>>>>>>> shadows!"
The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
If you put a sundial in one time zone...
it's shadows all the way down.
And - are zone times times or are they
something else?
All time measures are intervals.
You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between >>>>> that event and some other event.
This measure is often called 'time'.
Time includes also dates. Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is >>>>> a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
To the days we add hours, minutes and seconds (and occasionally
fractions of seconds) and call that 'time'.
But this time has nothing to do with sun-dials, because Christ was not >>>>> born 24 times on a single day.
TH
No, you set a certain reference point in the Shadow, and
measure the movement of the shadow.
This measure you often called 'time'.
But, it's just the sun's shadow...there is no time. It's always Now,
shadow or no shadow.
The sun is just going around and around and asks, "What are you guys
doing, it's just a shadow?!"
"Pay no mind to us Sun, we are just trying to synchronize out sundials." >>>>
In other words, the big hand on the clock is in fact...a mechanical
shadow.
And?
Are zone times times or are they
something else?
12X
X = times
12 times.
How many times are you going to ask dis question????
W dniu 19.03.2024 oย 20:09, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 19.03.2024 oร 09:01, The Starmaker pisze:
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oรฦรขโฌลก 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oรฦรโรยขรขโยฌร ยก 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:So, who, or what, can use time to model?
W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:??
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects
have to
fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
time')
So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' >>>>>>>>>>>>> (of/in
spacetime).
Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of >>>>>>>>>>>>> atoms.
A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would >>>>>>>>>>>>> alllow a
Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
Who or what is using "time" conceptรฦรโรยขรขโยฌร ยก here?
Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell. >>>>>>>>>>
So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
are they something else?
Time zones are something else.
Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
Are they times or are they something else?
Time zones are just...shadows.
Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
times?
The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow. >>>>>>>>>
Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows? >>>>>>>>>
The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my >>>>>>>>> shadows!"
The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
If you put a sundial in one time zone...
it's shadows all the way down.
And - are zone times times or are they
something else?
All time measures are intervals.
You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between >>>>> that event and some other event.
This measure is often called 'time'.
Time includes also dates. Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is >>>>> a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
To the days we add hours, minutes and seconds (and occasionally
fractions of seconds) and call that 'time'.
But this time has nothing to do with sun-dials, because Christ was not >>>>> born 24 times on a single day.
TH
No, you set a certain reference point in the Shadow, and
measure the movement of the shadow.
This measure you often called 'time'.
But, it's just the sun's shadow...there is no time. It's always Now, >>>> shadow or no shadow.
The sun is just going around and around and asks, "What are you guys >>>> doing, it's just a shadow?!"
"Pay no mind to us Sun, we are just trying to synchronize out sundials." >>>>
In other words, the big hand on the clock is in fact...a mechanical
shadow.
And?
Are zone times times or are they
something else?
zone times are not times...it is just the Sun's 'shadow' moving across
the face of the earth.
Finally. An answer.
Who has told you that time can't be just Sun's
shadow moving across the face of the earth?
This measure is often called 'time'.
Time includes also dates.
Time IS a system of assigning dates/hours.
Measuring intervals is its less important,
secondary functionality. It's not optmized
for that and it doesn't have to be optimized
for that.
Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is
a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
No. It's 18th march 2024. Most people are unable
to calculate the interval between 2024-03-18
and 0001-01-01 correctly. And they don't need
it at all.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 19.03.2024 oร 20:09, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 19.03.2024 oรโ 09:01, The Starmaker pisze:
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oรฦรโรยขรขโยฌร ยก 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 17.03.2024 oรฦรโรโ รขโฌโขรฦรยขรยขรขโฌลกรยฌรโฆรยก 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:So, who, or what, can use time to model?
W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:??
I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects
have to
fullfil.
Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
time')
So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (of/in
spacetime).
Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atoms.
A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alllow a
Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
Who or what is using "time" conceptรฦรโรโ รขโฌโขรฦรยขรยขรขโฌลกรยฌรโฆรยก here?
Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell. >>>>>>>>>>>>
So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
are they something else?
Time zones are something else.
Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
Are they times or are they something else?
Time zones are just...shadows.
Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
times?
The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow. >>>>>>>>>>>
Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows? >>>>>>>>>>>
The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my >>>>>>>>>>> shadows!"
The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
If you put a sundial in one time zone...
it's shadows all the way down.
And - are zone times times or are they
something else?
All time measures are intervals.
You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between >>>>>>> that event and some other event.
This measure is often called 'time'.
Time includes also dates. Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is >>>>>>> a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'. >>>>>>>
To the days we add hours, minutes and seconds (and occasionally
fractions of seconds) and call that 'time'.
But this time has nothing to do with sun-dials, because Christ was not >>>>>>> born 24 times on a single day.
TH
No, you set a certain reference point in the Shadow, and
measure the movement of the shadow.
This measure you often called 'time'.
But, it's just the sun's shadow...there is no time. It's always Now, >>>>>> shadow or no shadow.
The sun is just going around and around and asks, "What are you guys >>>>>> doing, it's just a shadow?!"
"Pay no mind to us Sun, we are just trying to synchronize out sundials." >>>>>>
In other words, the big hand on the clock is in fact...a mechanical
shadow.
And?
Are zone times times or are they
something else?
zone times are not times...it is just the Sun's 'shadow' moving across
the face of the earth.
Finally. An answer.
Who has told you that time can't be just Sun's
shadow moving across the face of the earth?
There are no intervals, no points...the shadow is continious.
The Sun does not go tic, then tok. no intervals, no points...the shadow
is continious.
There is no time.
Am 18.03.2024 um 07:54 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
...
This measure is often called 'time'.
Time includes also dates.
Time IS a system of assigning dates/hours.
Measuring intervals is its less important,
secondary functionality. It's not optmized
for that and it doesn't have to be optimized
for that.
NO!!!
You have to distiguish between time (which is the physical phenomenon
you like to measure)
Time belongs to nature and exists there for uncertain reasons.
No. It's 18th march 2024. Most people are unable
to calculate the interval between 2024-03-18
and 0001-01-01 correctly. And they don't need
it at all.
Sure, most people cannot do that without a calculatorBut if you need
that number, you find various calculators, which canย answer that
question in less than a second.
Le 20/03/2024 ร 15:22, Maciej Wozniak a รฉcritย :
And the answer will be, most likely,ย wrong. Just checked with postgres
database. It doesn't know that the first date is gregorian and the
other is julian - and it doesn't know the difference. I bet you don't
know the difference too. Welcome to the real world?
$ cal 9 1752 September 1752 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datetime-units-history.html
(for those interested by the subject btw, there is no point to reply to asinine Wozniak's post)
Thomas Heger wrote:I always distinguish between a quantity and the measurement of this
not in physics, my friend. Try ๐ฃ๐๐ฌ_๐๐๐, ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ etc, but that's
stupid. The time used in physics is pretty well defined, ๐๐ก๐_๐จ๐ฆ๐๐, by
consent. You
I'm not quite certain, what you are trying to say.
In physics time is a quantity and measured in seconds. But that does not
say very much about how long a second is and why time exists in the
first place.
๐ถ๐'๐_๐ก๐ข๐ง a quantity, me frendo, but a fundamental dimension of the world.
๐ถ๐'๐_๐ก๐ข๐ง a quantity, me frendo, but a fundamental dimension of the
world.
I always distinguish between a quantity and the measurement of this
quantity. E.g. 'length' is a (physical) quantity and is measured in
meters.
No, because both terms are related, but not equal.Sure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact.
But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is
required for the increase of entropy in the first place.
the Entropy ๐๐ฆ time. Please stop ๐ป๐ผ๐ undrestanding tensors. Look
at this:
Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started
talking about entropy.
Radiation is essentially force.
With distance it becomes nearly zero from its source.
Creating the overall background radiation.
Thomas Heger wrote:
๐ถ๐'๐_๐ก๐ข๐ง a quantity, me frendo, but a fundamental dimension of the
world.
I always distinguish between a quantity and the measurement of this
quantity. E.g. 'length' is a (physical) quantity and is measured in
meters.
no, you don't. The meter is the length, not the space, which is a
dimension. You use space to count lengths, here meters.
the Entropy ๐๐ฆ time. Please stop ๐ป๐ผ๐ undrestanding tensors. Look atNo, because both terms are related, but not equal.
Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started
talking about entropy.
Heat transfer is possible in three different ways:
transport of heated media (convection)
dissipation of heat within some sort of stuff (conduction)
radiation Therefore it is not true, that thermal energy is always
transported by radiation.
I always distinguish between a quantity and the measurement of this
quantity. E.g. 'length' is a (physical) quantity and is measured in
meters.
no, you don't. The meter is the length, not the space, which is a
dimension. You use space to count lengths, here meters.
I actually do, because 'meter' is the name of a unit, which is used to measure 'length'.
W dniu 23.03.2024 oย 08:08, Thomas Heger pisze:
Well, yes, but that is not very important (whether or not the calander
is historical correct).
It's not very important that it is incorrect, because nobody really
cares for intervals.
Let's simply assume, that the birth of Christ was the event, from where
all calenders today start.
Why not? Why to bother about any reality when we're about building some magnificient explainations and formulas?
Thomas Heger wrote:
I always distinguish between a quantity and the measurement of this
quantity. E.g. 'length' is a (physical) quantity and is measured in
meters.
no, you don't. The meter is the length, not the space, which is a
dimension. You use space to count lengths, here meters.
I actually do, because 'meter' is the name of a unit, which is used to
measure 'length'.
ludicrous. The meter is a length in itself, and without space you have no meter. Undrestand this, space and time are not quantities you measure. You use them to measure something else. For instance, your government is a
whore. They never stop stealing from other countries with that fake
Thomas Heger wrote:
the Entropy ๐๐ฆ time. Please stop ๐ป๐ผ๐ undrestanding tensors. Look atNo, because both terms are related, but not equal.
Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started
talking about entropy.
Heat transfer is possible in three different ways:
transport of heated media (convection)
dissipation of heat within some sort of stuff (conduction)
radiation Therefore it is not true, that thermal energy is always
transported by radiation.
totally irrelevant. It's about you don't know what time is.
radiation Therefore it is not true, that thermal energy is always
transported by radiation.
totally irrelevant. It's about you don't know what time is.
Well, yes, because actually most people do not really know what time is.
We have watches and clocks, but do not really know, what makes time
move.
A device as simple as a ruler can measure some length. But the ruler or
the inscriptions on it are not length.
I personally think, that CMBR has nothing to do with the big-bang, but
is caused by the gravitational field of the Earth.
How does that work?
Am 23.03.2024 um 18:39 schrieb Yatzyk Trampotova:
Thomas Heger wrote:
the Entropy ๐๐ฆ time. Please stop ๐ป๐ผ๐ undrestanding tensors. Look atNo, because both terms are related, but not equal.
Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started
talking about entropy.
Heat transfer is possible in three different ways:
transport of heated media (convection)
dissipation of heat within some sort of stuff (conduction)
radiation Therefore it is not true, that thermal energy is always
transported by radiation.
totally irrelevant. It's about you don't know what time is.
Well, yes, because actually most people do not really know what time is.
We have watches and clocks, but do not really know, what makes time move.
...
TH
However my
"๐๐ฃ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฟ๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐๐ฃ๐ฉ ๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ง ๐ค๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐ค๐ซ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ค๐๐ง๐ฅ๐๐ง๐จ ๐๐ค๐๐๐ก" makes sense, since
its
about supper_positioning the amplitude of the involved mater
probability distribution. So much indeed.
How is that scientific?
cant you fucking read ๐ฅ๐ง๐ค๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ฉ๐ฎ_๐๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ง๐๐๐ช๐ฉ๐๐ค๐ฃ and ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ก๐๐ฉ๐ช๐๐, regardin
the ๐ฆ๐ช๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ช๐ข_๐๐ค๐ข๐๐๐ฃ, which is probably the ๐๐ค๐ก๐ก๐ฎ_๐๐๐ค๐จ๐ฉ in ๐๐๐_๐ฝ๐๐๐ก๐, my
friend.
More superior lies than statistics, what, my friend, this gibberish?
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 23.03.2024 um 18:39 schrieb Yatzyk Trampotova:
Thomas Heger wrote:
the Entropy ๐๐ฆ time. Please stop ๐ป๐ผ๐ undrestanding tensors. Look atNo, because both terms are related, but not equal.
Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started
talking about entropy.
Heat transfer is possible in three different ways:
transport of heated media (convection)
dissipation of heat within some sort of stuff (conduction)
radiation Therefore it is not true, that thermal energy is always
transported by radiation.
totally irrelevant. It's about you don't know what time is.
Well, yes, because actually most people do not really know what time is.
We have watches and clocks, but do not really know, what makes time move.
...
TH
I don't know how else to explain it in terms that you can understand...
(especially since this is being posted to a ...math group of people?)
So, go back to the clock..whose hands on the clock are simply
a mechanical shadow...
From the perspective of a 'math group of people' who believe that mathematical objects are ...real, by the exact same person who told
them the 'shadow' is not a real world.
Yous people are in a matrix.
The shadows whether in a cave or on the face of a clock is not reality.
The clock is displaying...shadows.
Math are shadows.
Yous people are in a matrix.
You're prisoners of shadows.
Mathematical objects are shadows...
leave the cave...
leave the matrix..
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 23.03.2024 um 18:39 schrieb Yatzyk Trampotova:
Thomas Heger wrote:
the Entropy ๐๐ฆ time. Please stop ๐ป๐ผ๐ undrestanding tensors. Look atNo, because both terms are related, but not equal.
Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started >>> talking about entropy.
Heat transfer is possible in three different ways:
transport of heated media (convection)
dissipation of heat within some sort of stuff (conduction)
radiation Therefore it is not true, that thermal energy is always
transported by radiation.
totally irrelevant. It's about you don't know what time is.
Well, yes, because actually most people do not really know what time is.
We have watches and clocks, but do not really know, what makes time move.
...
TH
I don't know how else to explain it in terms that you can understand...
(especially since this is being posted to a ...math group of people?)
So, go back to the clock..whose hands on the clock are simply
a mechanical shadow...
From the perspective of a 'math group of people' who believe that mathematical objects are ...real, by the exact same person who told
them the 'shadow' is not a real world.
Yous people are in a matrix.
The shadows whether in a cave or on the face of a clock is not reality.
The clock is displaying...shadows.
Math are shadows.
Yous people are in a matrix.
You're prisoners of shadows.
Mathematical objects are shadows...
leave the cave...
leave the matrix..
notice that Plato never mentions anything about the shadows on
sundials...
More superior lies than statistics, what, my friend, this gibberish?
probabilities are NOT statistics, my man.
Probabilities relate to politics. Statistics relate to business. Just as politics and business are intertwined, probability and statistics are intertwined. Neither relate to physics.
Le 28/03/2024 ร 13:38, Yasmani Hasekura a รฉcrit :
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
More superior lies than statistics, what, my friend, this gibberish?
probabilities are NOT statistics, my man.
Probabilities relate to politics. Statistics relate to business. Just
as politics and business are intertwined, probability and statistics
are intertwined. Neither relate to physics.
And that is not something abusive cretins posting in physics ngs can
ever understand!
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 23.03.2024 um 18:39 schrieb Yatzyk Trampotova:
Thomas Heger wrote:
the Entropy ๐๐ฆ time. Please stop ๐ป๐ผ๐ undrestanding tensors. Look atNo, because both terms are related, but not equal.
Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started >>> talking about entropy.
Heat transfer is possible in three different ways:
transport of heated media (convection)
dissipation of heat within some sort of stuff (conduction)
radiation Therefore it is not true, that thermal energy is always
transported by radiation.
totally irrelevant. It's about you don't know what time is.
Well, yes, because actually most people do not really know what time is.
We have watches and clocks, but do not really know, what makes time move.
...
TH
I don't know how else to explain it in terms that you can understand...
(especially since this is being posted to a ...math group of people?)
So, go back to the clock..whose hands on the clock are simply
a mechanical shadow...
From the perspective of a 'math group of people' who believe that mathematical objects are ...real, by the exact same person who told
them the 'shadow' is not a real world.
Yous people are in a matrix.
The shadows whether in a cave or on the face of a clock is not reality.
The clock is displaying...shadows.
Math are shadows.
Yous people are in a matrix.
You're prisoners of shadows.
Mathematical objects are shadows...
leave the cave...
leave the matrix..
notice that Plato never mentions anything about the shadows on
sundials...
Plato looks at the Sundial and exclaims "THAT CANNOT BE THE CORRECT TIME, IT'S SHADOWS!!!!"
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 23.03.2024 um 18:39 schrieb Yatzyk Trampotova:
Thomas Heger wrote:
They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they startedthe Entropy ๐๐ฆ time. Please stop ๐ป๐ผ๐ undrestanding tensors. Look atNo, because both terms are related, but not equal.
Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution. >>>
talking about entropy.
Heat transfer is possible in three different ways:
transport of heated media (convection)
dissipation of heat within some sort of stuff (conduction)
radiation Therefore it is not true, that thermal energy is always >> transported by radiation.
totally irrelevant. It's about you don't know what time is.
Well, yes, because actually most people do not really know what time is.
We have watches and clocks, but do not really know, what makes time move.
...
TH
I don't know how else to explain it in terms that you can understand...
(especially since this is being posted to a ...math group of people?)
So, go back to the clock..whose hands on the clock are simply
a mechanical shadow...
From the perspective of a 'math group of people' who believe that mathematical objects are ...real, by the exact same person who told them the 'shadow' is not a real world.
Yous people are in a matrix.
The shadows whether in a cave or on the face of a clock is not reality.
The clock is displaying...shadows.
Math are shadows.
Yous people are in a matrix.
You're prisoners of shadows.
Mathematical objects are shadows...
leave the cave...
leave the matrix..
notice that Plato never mentions anything about the shadows on sundials...
Plato looks at the Sundial and exclaims "THAT CANNOT BE THE CORRECT TIME, IT'S SHADOWS!!!!"
I mean, I just don't understand...
Plato looks at the shadows and
says those shadows are not reality,
while he sees everyone using the shadows
on sundials for measuring Time.
On the other side of his mouth he
claims NUMBERS are real physical objects.
The Sundial contains shadows and Numbers!
Are the numbers real and the shadows not..
Or are the shadows real and the numbers not...
or are the shadows and numbers are real?
The shadows and the numbers are not reality is the Answer.
Numbers don't exist out there..
and the shadows are not physical objects.
So, shadows tell you the time?
Those hands on the clock are
mechanical shadows..
yous still using sundials
to measure time with shadows...
and imaginary numbers.
YOU PEOPLE ARE INSANE!!!
'notice that Plato never mentions anything about the shadows on
sundials...'
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 23.03.2024 um 18:39 schrieb Yatzyk Trampotova:
Thomas Heger wrote:
They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they startedthe Entropy ๐๐ฆ time. Please stop ๐ป๐ผ๐ undrestanding tensors. Look atNo, because both terms are related, but not equal.
Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution. >>>
talking about entropy.
Heat transfer is possible in three different ways:
transport of heated media (convection)
dissipation of heat within some sort of stuff (conduction)
radiation Therefore it is not true, that thermal energy is always
transported by radiation.
totally irrelevant. It's about you don't know what time is.
Well, yes, because actually most people do not really know what time is.
We have watches and clocks, but do not really know, what makes time move.
...
TH
I don't know how else to explain it in terms that you can understand...
(especially since this is being posted to a ...math group of people?)
So, go back to the clock..whose hands on the clock are simply
a mechanical shadow...
From the perspective of a 'math group of people' who believe that mathematical objects are ...real, by the exact same person who told them the 'shadow' is not a real world.
Yous people are in a matrix.
The shadows whether in a cave or on the face of a clock is not reality.
The clock is displaying...shadows.
Math are shadows.
Yous people are in a matrix.
You're prisoners of shadows.
Mathematical objects are shadows...
leave the cave...
leave the matrix..
notice that Plato never mentions anything about the shadows on sundials...
Plato looks at the Sundial and exclaims "THAT CANNOT BE THE CORRECT TIME, IT'S SHADOWS!!!!"
I mean, I just don't understand...
Plato looks at the shadows and
says those shadows are not reality,
while he sees everyone using the shadows
on sundials for measuring Time.
On the other side of his mouth he
claims NUMBERS are real physical objects.
The Sundial contains shadows and Numbers!
Are the numbers real and the shadows not..
Or are the shadows real and the numbers not...
or are the shadows and numbers are real?
The shadows and the numbers are not reality is the Answer.
Numbers don't exist out there..
and the shadows are not physical objects.
So, shadows tell you the time?
Those hands on the clock are
mechanical shadows..
yous still using sundials
to measure time with shadows...
and imaginary numbers.
YOU PEOPLE ARE INSANE!!!
'notice that Plato never mentions anything about the shadows on
sundials...'
Now, you take the clock apart..
first you remove the mechanical shadows
what you call hands on the clock
actually high tech shadows...
then you remove the numbers from
the face of the clock...
numbers don't exist out there..
Now what? You take apart the
actusl cover and what do you see...
a Machine!
No different than removing
that warm smile from a
womans' face and seeing behind it..
a Machine!
The clock and the woman
are illusions.
'Very stubborn illusions' as someone once siad.
So, what is measuring Time? Illusions??
Is Time an illusion too!
It's just the Sun's shadow.
Does the shadow...tick?
Does the shadow make sudden
tik tok movements?
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 23.03.2024 um 18:39 schrieb Yatzyk Trampotova:
Thomas Heger wrote:
the Entropy ๐๐ฆ time. Please stop ๐ป๐ผ๐ undrestanding tensors. Look atNo, because both terms are related, but not equal.
Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started
talking about entropy.
Heat transfer is possible in three different ways:
transport of heated media (convection)
dissipation of heat within some sort of stuff (conduction)
radiation Therefore it is not true, that thermal energy is always
transported by radiation.
totally irrelevant. It's about you don't know what time is.
Well, yes, because actually most people do not really know what time is.
We have watches and clocks, but do not really know, what makes time move.
...
TH
I don't know how else to explain it in terms that you can understand...
(especially since this is being posted to a ...math group of people?)
So, go back to the clock..whose hands on the clock are simply
a mechanical shadow...
From the perspective of a 'math group of people' who believe that mathematical objects are ...real, by the exact same person who told them the 'shadow' is not a real world.
Yous people are in a matrix.
The shadows whether in a cave or on the face of a clock is not reality.
The clock is displaying...shadows.
Math are shadows.
Yous people are in a matrix.
You're prisoners of shadows.
Mathematical objects are shadows...
leave the cave...
leave the matrix..
notice that Plato never mentions anything about the shadows on sundials...
Plato looks at the Sundial and exclaims "THAT CANNOT BE THE CORRECT TIME, IT'S SHADOWS!!!!"
I mean, I just don't understand...
Plato looks at the shadows and
says those shadows are not reality,
while he sees everyone using the shadows
on sundials for measuring Time.
On the other side of his mouth he
claims NUMBERS are real physical objects.
The Sundial contains shadows and Numbers!
Are the numbers real and the shadows not..
Or are the shadows real and the numbers not...
or are the shadows and numbers are real?
The shadows and the numbers are not reality is the Answer.
Numbers don't exist out there..
and the shadows are not physical objects.
So, shadows tell you the time?
Those hands on the clock are
mechanical shadows..
yous still using sundials
to measure time with shadows...
and imaginary numbers.
YOU PEOPLE ARE INSANE!!!
'notice that Plato never mentions anything about the shadows on
sundials...'
Now, you take the clock apart..
first you remove the mechanical shadows
what you call hands on the clock
actually high tech shadows...
then you remove the numbers from
the face of the clock...
numbers don't exist out there..
Now what? You take apart the
actusl cover and what do you see...
a Machine!
No different than removing
that warm smile from a
womans' face and seeing behind it..
a Machine!
The clock and the woman
are illusions.
'Very stubborn illusions' as someone once siad.
So, what is measuring Time? Illusions??
Is Time an illusion too!
It's just the Sun's shadow.
Does the shadow...tick?
Does the shadow make sudden
tik tok movements?
Keep in mind, I understand you
need these illusions to survive..
you need the shadows
the imaginary numbers
and especially..
her warm smile...
otherwise you would be
seeing not her..but a monster.
But don't tell me the
universe is mathematical, because
you insult my intelligence.
Buy her some lipstick.
Tell her how pretty she looks
while she mocks you with her smile.
She is just a ...machine.
(with lipstick)
Machines need illusions too!
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
I mean, come on..let's be real here...
a clock does not detect time
it doesn't even measure the flow of time
or the direction of time
or the arrow of time
(or which way is it going?)
okay, i got the bow of time, which
way am i pointing the arrow of time?
just follow the arrow.
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 23.03.2024 um 18:39 schrieb Yatzyk Trampotova:
Thomas Heger wrote:
the Entropy ๐๐ฆ time. Please stop ๐ป๐ผ๐ undrestanding tensors. Look atNo, because both terms are related, but not equal.
Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started
talking about entropy.
Heat transfer is possible in three different ways:
transport of heated media (convection)
dissipation of heat within some sort of stuff (conduction) >> radiation Therefore it is not true, that thermal energy is always
transported by radiation.
totally irrelevant. It's about you don't know what time is.
Well, yes, because actually most people do not really know what time is.
We have watches and clocks, but do not really know, what makes time move.
...
TH
I don't know how else to explain it in terms that you can understand...
(especially since this is being posted to a ...math group of people?)
So, go back to the clock..whose hands on the clock are simply
a mechanical shadow...
From the perspective of a 'math group of people' who believe that mathematical objects are ...real, by the exact same person who told
them the 'shadow' is not a real world.
Yous people are in a matrix.
The shadows whether in a cave or on the face of a clock is not reality.
The clock is displaying...shadows.
Math are shadows.
Yous people are in a matrix.
You're prisoners of shadows.
Mathematical objects are shadows...
leave the cave...
leave the matrix..
notice that Plato never mentions anything about the shadows on sundials...
Plato looks at the Sundial and exclaims "THAT CANNOT BE THE CORRECT TIME, IT'S SHADOWS!!!!"
I mean, I just don't understand...
Plato looks at the shadows and
says those shadows are not reality,
while he sees everyone using the shadows
on sundials for measuring Time.
On the other side of his mouth he
claims NUMBERS are real physical objects.
The Sundial contains shadows and Numbers!
Are the numbers real and the shadows not..
Or are the shadows real and the numbers not...
or are the shadows and numbers are real?
The shadows and the numbers are not reality is the Answer.
Numbers don't exist out there..
and the shadows are not physical objects.
So, shadows tell you the time?
Those hands on the clock are
mechanical shadows..
yous still using sundials
to measure time with shadows...
and imaginary numbers.
YOU PEOPLE ARE INSANE!!!
'notice that Plato never mentions anything about the shadows on
sundials...'
Now, you take the clock apart..
first you remove the mechanical shadows
what you call hands on the clock
actually high tech shadows...
then you remove the numbers from
the face of the clock...
numbers don't exist out there..
Now what? You take apart the
actusl cover and what do you see...
a Machine!
No different than removing
that warm smile from a
womans' face and seeing behind it..
a Machine!
The clock and the woman
are illusions.
'Very stubborn illusions' as someone once siad.
So, what is measuring Time? Illusions??
Is Time an illusion too!
It's just the Sun's shadow.
Does the shadow...tick?
Does the shadow make sudden
tik tok movements?
Keep in mind, I understand you
need these illusions to survive..
you need the shadows
the imaginary numbers
and especially..
her warm smile...
otherwise you would be
seeing not her..but a monster.
But don't tell me the
universe is mathematical, because
you insult my intelligence.
Buy her some lipstick.
Tell her how pretty she looks
while she mocks you with her smile.
She is just a ...machine.
(with lipstick)
Machines need illusions too!
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Wait a minute, wait a minute...are
you trying to tell
me that a sundial is only a devise
that ...follows the sun?
The Starmaker wrote:
I mean, come on..let's be real here...
a clock does not detect time
it doesn't even measure the flow of time
or the direction of time
or the arrow of time
(or which way is it going?)
okay, i got the bow of time, which
way am i pointing the arrow of time?
just follow the arrow.
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 23.03.2024 um 18:39 schrieb Yatzyk Trampotova:
Thomas Heger wrote:
the Entropy ๐๐ฆ time. Please stop ๐ป๐ผ๐ undrestanding tensors. Look atNo, because both terms are related, but not equal.
Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started
talking about entropy.
Heat transfer is possible in three different ways:
transport of heated media (convection)
dissipation of heat within some sort of stuff (conduction) >> radiation Therefore it is not true, that thermal energy is always
transported by radiation.
totally irrelevant. It's about you don't know what time is.
Well, yes, because actually most people do not really know what time is.
We have watches and clocks, but do not really know, what makes time move.
...
TH
I don't know how else to explain it in terms that you can understand...
(especially since this is being posted to a ...math group of people?)
So, go back to the clock..whose hands on the clock are simply
a mechanical shadow...
From the perspective of a 'math group of people' who believe that
mathematical objects are ...real, by the exact same person who told
them the 'shadow' is not a real world.
Yous people are in a matrix.
The shadows whether in a cave or on the face of a clock is not reality.
The clock is displaying...shadows.
Math are shadows.
Yous people are in a matrix.
You're prisoners of shadows.
Mathematical objects are shadows...
leave the cave...
leave the matrix..
notice that Plato never mentions anything about the shadows on sundials...
Plato looks at the Sundial and exclaims "THAT CANNOT BE THE CORRECT TIME, IT'S SHADOWS!!!!"
I mean, I just don't understand...
Plato looks at the shadows and
says those shadows are not reality,
while he sees everyone using the shadows
on sundials for measuring Time.
On the other side of his mouth he
claims NUMBERS are real physical objects.
The Sundial contains shadows and Numbers!
Are the numbers real and the shadows not..
Or are the shadows real and the numbers not...
or are the shadows and numbers are real?
The shadows and the numbers are not reality is the Answer.
Numbers don't exist out there..
and the shadows are not physical objects.
So, shadows tell you the time?
Those hands on the clock are
mechanical shadows..
yous still using sundials
to measure time with shadows...
and imaginary numbers.
YOU PEOPLE ARE INSANE!!!
'notice that Plato never mentions anything about the shadows on
sundials...'
Now, you take the clock apart..
first you remove the mechanical shadows
what you call hands on the clock
actually high tech shadows...
then you remove the numbers from
the face of the clock...
numbers don't exist out there..
Now what? You take apart the
actusl cover and what do you see...
a Machine!
No different than removing
that warm smile from a
womans' face and seeing behind it..
a Machine!
The clock and the woman
are illusions.
'Very stubborn illusions' as someone once siad.
So, what is measuring Time? Illusions??
Is Time an illusion too!
It's just the Sun's shadow.
Does the shadow...tick?
Does the shadow make sudden
tik tok movements?
Keep in mind, I understand you
need these illusions to survive..
you need the shadows
the imaginary numbers
and especially..
her warm smile...
otherwise you would be
seeing not her..but a monster.
But don't tell me the
universe is mathematical, because
you insult my intelligence.
Buy her some lipstick.
Tell her how pretty she looks
while she mocks you with her smile.
She is just a ...machine.
(with lipstick)
Machines need illusions too!
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
ok, a sundial is for dialing the sun.
"Hi Sun, where are you?"
"Well, at 12:pm I was here and it's now 3:pm so I'm over here.
a sundial is for making phone calls to the Sun.
"I'm over here now."
You know, you make a phonecall and you ask your girlfriend "Where are
you at?"
She says, "I'm over here!"
You say, "When are you coming over here?"
She sez..."I'll be there by sundown."
Now you gotta call the sun...
The Starmaker wrote:
Wait a minute, wait a minute...are
you trying to tell
me that a sundial is only a devise
that ...follows the sun?
The Starmaker wrote:
I mean, come on..let's be real here...
a clock does not detect time
it doesn't even measure the flow of time
or the direction of time
or the arrow of time
(or which way is it going?)
okay, i got the bow of time, which
way am i pointing the arrow of time?
just follow the arrow.
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 23.03.2024 um 18:39 schrieb Yatzyk Trampotova:
Thomas Heger wrote:
the Entropy ๐๐ฆ time. Please stop ๐ป๐ผ๐ undrestanding tensors. Look atNo, because both terms are related, but not equal. >>>> Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started
talking about entropy.
Heat transfer is possible in three different ways:
transport of heated media (convection)
dissipation of heat within some sort of stuff (conduction)
radiation Therefore it is not true, that thermal energy is always
transported by radiation.
totally irrelevant. It's about you don't know what time is.
Well, yes, because actually most people do not really know what time is.
We have watches and clocks, but do not really know, what makes time move.
...
TH
I don't know how else to explain it in terms that you can understand...
(especially since this is being posted to a ...math group of people?)
So, go back to the clock..whose hands on the clock are simply a mechanical shadow...
From the perspective of a 'math group of people' who believe that
mathematical objects are ...real, by the exact same person who told
them the 'shadow' is not a real world.
Yous people are in a matrix.
The shadows whether in a cave or on the face of a clock is not reality.
The clock is displaying...shadows.
Math are shadows.
Yous people are in a matrix.
You're prisoners of shadows.
Mathematical objects are shadows...
leave the cave...
leave the matrix..
notice that Plato never mentions anything about the shadows on sundials...
Plato looks at the Sundial and exclaims "THAT CANNOT BE THE CORRECT TIME, IT'S SHADOWS!!!!"
I mean, I just don't understand...
Plato looks at the shadows and
says those shadows are not reality,
while he sees everyone using the shadows
on sundials for measuring Time.
On the other side of his mouth he
claims NUMBERS are real physical objects.
The Sundial contains shadows and Numbers!
Are the numbers real and the shadows not..
Or are the shadows real and the numbers not...
or are the shadows and numbers are real?
The shadows and the numbers are not reality is the Answer.
Numbers don't exist out there..
and the shadows are not physical objects.
So, shadows tell you the time?
Those hands on the clock are
mechanical shadows..
yous still using sundials
to measure time with shadows...
and imaginary numbers.
YOU PEOPLE ARE INSANE!!!
'notice that Plato never mentions anything about the shadows on
sundials...'
Now, you take the clock apart..
first you remove the mechanical shadows
what you call hands on the clock
actually high tech shadows...
then you remove the numbers from
the face of the clock...
numbers don't exist out there..
Now what? You take apart the
actusl cover and what do you see...
a Machine!
No different than removing
that warm smile from a
womans' face and seeing behind it..
a Machine!
The clock and the woman
are illusions.
'Very stubborn illusions' as someone once siad.
So, what is measuring Time? Illusions??
Is Time an illusion too!
It's just the Sun's shadow.
Does the shadow...tick?
Does the shadow make sudden
tik tok movements?
Keep in mind, I understand you
need these illusions to survive..
you need the shadows
the imaginary numbers
and especially..
her warm smile...
otherwise you would be
seeing not her..but a monster.
But don't tell me the
universe is mathematical, because
you insult my intelligence.
Buy her some lipstick.
Tell her how pretty she looks
while she mocks you with her smile.
She is just a ...machine.
(with lipstick)
Machines need illusions too!
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
the fact is...there is no devise on earth that can detect ...time.
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
the fact is...there is no devise on earth that can detect ...time.
That depends on which definition of the word time you are using.
a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process,
or condition exists or continues
b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which
succeed one another from past through present to future
< snip old crap >
The operative word is "detect" not time.
deยทtect
/d?'tek(t)/
verb
discover or identify the presence or existence of.
to discover the true character of https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+detect
identify the presence of time.
identify the existence of time.
The fact is...there is no devise on earth that can detect, identify, the presence and existence of ...time.
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
the fact is...there is no devise on earth that can detect ...time.
That depends on which definition of the word time you are using.
a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process,
or condition exists or continues
b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which
succeed one another from past through present to future
< snip old crap >
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
the fact is...there is no devise on earth that can detect ...time.
That depends on which definition of the word time you are using.
a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process,
or condition exists or continues
b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which
succeed one another from past through present to future
< snip old crap >
The operative word is "detect" not time.
deยทtect
/d?'tek(t)/
verb
discover or identify the presence or existence of.
to discover the true character of https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+detect
identify the presence of time.
identify the existence of time.
The fact is...there is no devise on earth that can detect, identify, the presence and existence of ...time.
The fact is what you post is childish, ignorant twaddle.
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
the fact is...there is no devise on earth that can detect ...time.
That depends on which definition of the word time you are using.
a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process,
or condition exists or continues
b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which
succeed one another from past through present to future
< snip old crap >
The operative word is "detect" not time.
deรยทtect
/d?'tek(t)/
verb
discover or identify the presence or existence of.
to discover the true character of
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+detect
identify the presence of time.
identify the existence of time.
The fact is...there is no devise on earth that can detect, identify, the presence and existence of ...time.
The fact is what you post is childish, ignorant twaddle.
I was using 3rd grade reading levels so that anyone can understand...but
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
the fact is...there is no devise on earth that can detect ...time.
That depends on which definition of the word time you are using.
a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, >> >> or condition exists or continues
b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which
succeed one another from past through present to future
< snip old crap >
The operative word is "detect" not time.
deรยทtect
/d?'tek(t)/
verb
discover or identify the presence or existence of.
to discover the true character of
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+detect >> >
identify the presence of time.
identify the existence of time.
The fact is...there is no devise on earth that can detect, identify, the presence and existence of ...time.
The fact is what you post is childish, ignorant twaddle.
I was using 3rd grade reading levels so that anyone can understand...but
Everything you post is at best 3rd grade level.
Jim Pennino wrote:
Everything you post is at best 3rd grade level.
All I'm sayin is a sundial is not a clock, it's a telephone.
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
And like I said, everything you post is at best 3rd grade level.Everything you post is at best 3rd grade level.All I'm sayin is a sundial is not a clock, it's a telephone.
telephone noun a system for transmitting voices over a distance using
wire or radio,
by converting acoustic vibrations to electrical signals.
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
And like I said, everything you post is at best 3rd grade level.Everything you post is at best 3rd grade level.All I'm sayin is a sundial is not a clock, it's a telephone.
telephone noun a system for transmitting voices over a distance using
wire or radio,
by converting acoustic vibrations to electrical signals.
wrong again. Radio is not an electric signal. But this is terrifying, what capitalism does with people.
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the
underlying frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
https://www.bing.com/search?q=clock+picture&form=ANNTH1&refig=7f26d3e3f0dd44458d7e38ba627e82c5&pc=U531
These are, poor halfbrain.
Am 01.03.2024 um 07:25 schrieb Maciej Woลบniak:
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the
underlying frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
https://www.bing.com/search?q=clock+picture&form=ANNTH1&refig=7f26d3e3f0dd44458d7e38ba627e82c5&pc=U531
These are, poor halfbrain.
All of these do not show time!
Dates belong to time values, too, because time is not only counting the hours, minutes and seconds within a single day.
TH
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old crap>
Everything you post is at best 3rd grade level.
All I'm sayin is a sundial is not a clock, it's a telephone.
And like I said, everything you post is at best 3rd grade level.
telephone
noun
a system for transmitting voices over a distance using wire or radio,
by converting acoustic vibrations to electrical signals.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 01.03.2024 um 07:25 schrieb Maciej Woลบniak:
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which >>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and >>> the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the
underlying frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
https://www.bing.com/search?q=clock+picture&form=ANNTH1&refig=7f26d3e3f0dd44458d7e38ba627e82c5&pc=U531
These are, poor halfbrain.
All of these do not show time!
Dates belong to time values, too, because time is not only counting the hours, minutes and seconds within a single day.
TH
does time flow? how do you 'detect' the flow??
oh, oh, i'm running out of time! does time run?
if arrow of time, where is the bow?
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old crap>
Everything you post is at best 3rd grade level.
All I'm sayin is a sundial is not a clock, it's a telephone.
And like I said, everything you post is at best 3rd grade level.
telephone
noun
a system for transmitting voices over a distance using wire or radio,
by converting acoustic vibrations to electrical signals.
I see, I have to use kindergarten talk..
sun
dial
sun
tells
dial
a
number
on
the
dial
circle
round
rotary
dial
numbers
sun
tells
communicate
time
on
sundial
hello
what
time
is
it?
sun
tells
yo
the
time
tells
shadow
dial
number
what
time
is
it?
the
sun
say
3:pm
shadow
tells
sun
time
sun
tells
you
time
on
sun
dial.
you
tell
sun
dial
what
time
is
it
the
sun
says
4:pm
dial
numbers
on
rotary
phone
look
like
sundial
tells
let know
time
from
afar
far
away
sun
tells
you
time
on
sun
dial
by
shadow
om
dial
round
numbers
rotary
phone
sun
for
time.
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old crap>
Everything you post is at best 3rd grade level.
All I'm sayin is a sundial is not a clock, it's a telephone.
And like I said, everything you post is at best 3rd grade level.
telephone
noun
a system for transmitting voices over a distance using wire or radio,
by converting acoustic vibrations to electrical signals.
I see, I have to use kindergarten talk..
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 01.03.2024 um 07:25 schrieb Maciej Woลบniak:
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which >>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and >>> the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the
underlying frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
https://www.bing.com/search?q=clock+picture&form=ANNTH1&refig=7f26d3e3f0dd44458d7e38ba627e82c5&pc=U531
These are, poor halfbrain.
All of these do not show time!
Dates belong to time values, too, because time is not only counting the hours, minutes and seconds within a single day.
TH
does time flow? how do you 'detect' the flow??
oh, oh, i'm running out of time! does time run?
if arrow of time, where is the bow?
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 01.03.2024 um 07:25 schrieb Maciej Woร ยบniak:
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which >>>>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and >>>>> the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the
underlying frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?
https://www.bing.com/search?q=clock+picture&form=ANNTH1&refig=7f26d3e3f0dd44458d7e38ba627e82c5&pc=U531
These are, poor halfbrain.
All of these do not show time!
Dates belong to time values, too, because time is not only counting the
hours, minutes and seconds within a single day.
TH
does time flow? how do you 'detect' the flow??
oh, oh, i'm running out of time! does time run?
if arrow of time, where is the bow?
Am Freitag000005, 05.04.2024 um 09:50 schrieb The Starmaker:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 01.03.2024 um 07:25 schrieb Maciej Woร ยบniak:
The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which >>>>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and >>>>> the second.
Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of >>>>> certain atoms.
But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the
underlying frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
these frequencies are universally constant or not.
This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same >>>>> process, which frequency we like to measure.
This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly >>>> debated on these forums: What is a clock?
https://www.bing.com/search?q=clock+picture&form=ANNTH1&refig=7f26d3e3f0dd44458d7e38ba627e82c5&pc=U531
These are, poor halfbrain.
All of these do not show time!
Dates belong to time values, too, because time is not only counting the
hours, minutes and seconds within a single day.
TH
does time flow? how do you 'detect' the flow??
oh, oh, i'm running out of time! does time run?
if arrow of time, where is the bow?
The human perception of time isn't time neither.
You must not take your own impresions as something real!
Everything you think as reality is actually an internal representation
of the outer world, which is generated by your brain.
Therefore: what you think is not real, but an internal image about the
real world.
But natural sciences like physics are not about our usual daydreams, but about the real world, hence you should refrain from talking about
feelings or emotions in connection with physics.
Feelings are a subject of science, too, but not of physics.
TH
i'm soooo confused...
sci.math
is just... a feeling
that numbers exist.
do i got dat right?
dark matter and dark energy?
is it sci or physics?
i'm soooo confused...
W dniu 26.04.2024 oย 09:11, Thomas Heger pisze:
Now 'motion' or 'velocity' do not make sense, because everything
mentionend is at rest in a stationary system.
This is actually ok.
It's not. Theadness of physics didn't start with Giant Guru.
Le 30/04/2024 ร 12:38, "Paul B. Andersen" a รฉcrit :
Could you please tell us what you think the psychiatrist would say
about the person?
This is what I said, and which you disguise for obscure reasons.
So, it is obvious that in your particle collider, you will never be able
to find a particle with an observable speed greater than c.
In the case of particles with phenomenal speeds like Vr=6927c, this
speed must be transcribed into an observable value,
and we set Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vrยฒ/cยฒ). Vo=0.999999990c
The reason why I thought you wouldn't answer the question was that an affirmative answer would demonstrate that you are irrational and are
claiming what any sane person must know is wrong. Since you don't
understand that ...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 05:00:54 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,796 |