Time is not inherently linear. It is not merely a fourth axis in a fixed spacetime model. Rather, it emerges as both a perceptual and physical
construct tied to the rate of change within systems. When this rate of
change deviates significantly�especially in contexts involving mass and velocity�it can affect how time passes relative to an observer, producing measurable physical effects. In some cases, this may even lead to
gravitational anomalies.

Traditionally, physics has treated time as a dimension much like length,
width, and height. This is the foundation of the spacetime model
introduced in Einstein�s theories of relativity. Yet there exists another interpretation that is equally grounded in scientific observation: that
time is not a fixed background, but a derived property�a way of comparing
how systems evolve. From the perspective of thermodynamics, time�s arrow
points in the direction of increasing entropy, signifying that what we experience as the forward flow of time is actually a measure of
irreversible change. In quantum mechanics, time behaves differently than
in classical systems, often not even functioning as a dynamic operator in
the same way space does. Even in relativity, the passage of time is not absolute. Instead, time is observed to flow differently depending on
relative speed and gravitational conditions.

Einstein�s special relativity shows that time slows down for objects
moving at high speeds. The faster something travels, the more slowly time passes for it relative to a stationary observer. General relativity
extends this further, showing that strong gravitational fields also slow
down time. These well-documented phenomena reveal that time is not
immutable�it stretches and contracts in response to mass and motion. It
is not strictly linear, but fluid and conditional, dependent on context
and relative conditions. This supports the view that time is
fundamentally tied to the rate of change rather than acting as an
independent dimension.

On Earth, most of our experience occurs within a relatively stable gravitational field, and we tend to move at similar speeds. As a result,
the rates of change we observe appear consistent and synchronized. This
creates the illusion of linear, uniform time. However, this uniformity is local, not universal. A practical example is the necessity of correcting
GPS satellite clocks for both gravitational and velocity-based time
dilation. The technology depends on compensating for the slight but
significant difference in the rate at which time passes at altitude and
orbital speed compared to time on the surface of the Earth.

When we introduce systems involving rapid motion and concentrated mass,
such as helicopter blades, we start to see more dramatic divergence in
the rate of change. Helicopter blades are made of dense material and
rotate at extremely high speeds. Although their tangential velocity is
far below the speed of light, they nonetheless experience minor but real
time dilation. These effects can be calculated using special relativity.
While small in absolute terms, they become meaningful when considered as
a differential from the Earth-normal time rate. The rotating blades are,
in effect, operating in a slightly different temporal frame from the surrounding environment.

Extrapolating from this, if high-mass, high-speed rotation can compress
local time, then it could also produce distortions in inertia and
gravity. This is similar to ideas proposed in theoretical propulsion
systems such as the Mach Effect and the Woodward drive, which posit that inertia and gravitational interaction are not fixed, but functions of
changing energy states and time. In this framework, altering the rate of
time locally could feasibly modify the experience of gravity.

Gravity, in general relativity, is described as the curvature of
spacetime caused by mass and energy. If mass-energy can influence the
passage of time, then the reverse may also be true: manipulating
time�through changes in mass distribution or velocity�could affect gravitational force. This leads to the possibility of creating conditions
that mimic or reduce gravity. In other words, if helicopter blades or
other rotating mass systems can sufficiently alter their local time rate,
they might generate a gravity-like reduction or repulsion. This
conceptual model forms a speculative but not baseless approach to
understanding so-called anti-gravity effects.

Some experimental anomalies, like the Podkletnov effect, have fueled this hypothesis. In these controversial experiments, a spinning
superconducting disc appeared to reduce the weight of objects placed
above it. While unconfirmed and highly debated, such results suggest that
the interaction between mass, motion, and local time rates could produce measurable changes in gravitational behavior. Another reference for this
is Eric Laithwaite, a British electrical engineer, became known for his
work with linear induction motors and his controversial claims about
gyroscopes and "anti-gravity."

Taken together, these observations support the idea that time is best understood not as a linear axis but as an emergent property of changing systems. When the rate of change departs significantly from the norm�particularly in high-mass, high-velocity systems�relativistic time dilation occurs, potentially affecting inertia and gravity. While much of
this remains theoretical, the underlying principle aligns with known
physics. The notion that localized time differentials could manifest as anti-gravity is not inherently unscientific. It is a provocative
extension of established principles and invites further exploration into
the true nature of time and its relationship to motion, matter, and the
forces that shape our universe.

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

Street <street@shellcrash.com> wrote:

Time is not inherently linear. It is not merely a fourth axis in a fixed spacetime model.

Time is what the clock says it is.
Hence it is inherently linear.
If you want time to be non-linear it is up to you to say
what other time standard it is to be compared with.

Jan

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

Street <street@shellcrash.com> wrote or quoted:

Some experimental anomalies, like the Podkletnov effect, have fueled this >hypothesis. In these controversial experiments, a spinning
superconducting disc appeared to reduce the weight of objects placed
above it. While unconfirmed and highly debated, such results suggest that

Recent discussions here made me aware that there is in fact one
kind of "gravity shielding" that is not disputed:

An electron and a proton in isolation have a certain mass and,
therefore, weight.

When bound to hydrogen, however, the mass of the atom is slightly
smaller than the sum of the masses of the isolated parts electron
and proton due to what is known as the (negative) "binding energy".

This means that the weight of the bound atom is less than the
weight of its two parts in isolation. It is as if the binding
is "shielding" some of the gravity.

If the binding energy would equal the two masses, the atom would
become weightless. If the binding energy would become even smaller,
the atom might be repulsed by the gravity of the Earth flying away
from it.

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

Street <street@shellcrash.com> wrote or quoted:

Taken together, these observations support the idea that time is best >understood not as a linear axis but as an emergent property of changing >systems.

Yeah, that all sounds fine and dandy, but at the end of the day, it
really boils down to what kind of predictions you can pull from it
for experiments that differ from what standard physics already says.

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

On 7/27/2025 1:59 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Street <street@shellcrash.com> wrote:

Time is not inherently linear. It is not merely a fourth axis in a fixed
spacetime model.

Time is what the clock says it is.

In the reality. In physics time is what a
relativistic idiot says it is.

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

On 27 Jul 2025 11:14:52 GMT, Street <street@shellcrash.com> wrote:

Time is not inherently linear. It is not merely a fourth axis in a fixed >spacetime model. Rather, it emerges as both a perceptual and physical >construct tied to the rate of change within systems. When this rate of
change deviates significantly�especially in contexts involving mass and >velocity�it can affect how time passes relative to an observer, producing >measurable physical effects. In some cases, this may even lead to >gravitational anomalies.

Traditionally, physics has treated time as a dimension much like length, >width, and height. This is the foundation of the spacetime model
introduced in Einstein�s theories of relativity. Yet there exists another >interpretation that is equally grounded in scientific observation: that
time is not a fixed background, but a derived property�a way of comparing
how systems evolve. From the perspective of thermodynamics, time�s arrow >points in the direction of increasing entropy, signifying that what we >experience as the forward flow of time is actually a measure of
irreversible change. In quantum mechanics, time behaves differently than
in classical systems, often not even functioning as a dynamic operator in
the same way space does. Even in relativity, the passage of time is not >absolute. Instead, time is observed to flow differently depending on
relative speed and gravitational conditions.

Einstein�s special relativity shows that time slows down for objects
moving at high speeds. The faster something travels, the more slowly time >passes for it relative to a stationary observer. General relativity
extends this further, showing that strong gravitational fields also slow
down time. These well-documented phenomena reveal that time is not >immutable�it stretches and contracts in response to mass and motion. It
is not strictly linear, but fluid and conditional, dependent on context
and relative conditions. This supports the view that time is
fundamentally tied to the rate of change rather than acting as an
independent dimension.

On Earth, most of our experience occurs within a relatively stable >gravitational field, and we tend to move at similar speeds. As a result,
the rates of change we observe appear consistent and synchronized. This >creates the illusion of linear, uniform time. However, this uniformity is >local, not universal. A practical example is the necessity of correcting
GPS satellite clocks for both gravitational and velocity-based time
dilation. The technology depends on compensating for the slight but >significant difference in the rate at which time passes at altitude and >orbital speed compared to time on the surface of the Earth.

When we introduce systems involving rapid motion and concentrated mass,
such as helicopter blades, we start to see more dramatic divergence in
the rate of change. Helicopter blades are made of dense material and
rotate at extremely high speeds. Although their tangential velocity is
far below the speed of light, they nonetheless experience minor but real
time dilation. These effects can be calculated using special relativity. >While small in absolute terms, they become meaningful when considered as
a differential from the Earth-normal time rate. The rotating blades are,
in effect, operating in a slightly different temporal frame from the >surrounding environment.

Extrapolating from this, if high-mass, high-speed rotation can compress
local time, then it could also produce distortions in inertia and
gravity. This is similar to ideas proposed in theoretical propulsion
systems such as the Mach Effect and the Woodward drive, which posit that >inertia and gravitational interaction are not fixed, but functions of >changing energy states and time. In this framework, altering the rate of
time locally could feasibly modify the experience of gravity.

Gravity, in general relativity, is described as the curvature of
spacetime caused by mass and energy. If mass-energy can influence the
passage of time, then the reverse may also be true: manipulating
time�through changes in mass distribution or velocity�could affect >gravitational force. This leads to the possibility of creating conditions >that mimic or reduce gravity. In other words, if helicopter blades or
other rotating mass systems can sufficiently alter their local time rate, >they might generate a gravity-like reduction or repulsion. This
conceptual model forms a speculative but not baseless approach to >understanding so-called anti-gravity effects.

Some experimental anomalies, like the Podkletnov effect, have fueled this >hypothesis. In these controversial experiments, a spinning
superconducting disc appeared to reduce the weight of objects placed
above it. While unconfirmed and highly debated, such results suggest that
the interaction between mass, motion, and local time rates could produce >measurable changes in gravitational behavior. Another reference for this
is Eric Laithwaite, a British electrical engineer, became known for his
work with linear induction motors and his controversial claims about >gyroscopes and "anti-gravity."

Taken together, these observations support the idea that time is best >understood not as a linear axis but as an emergent property of changing >systems. When the rate of change departs significantly from the >norm�particularly in high-mass, high-velocity systems�relativistic time >dilation occurs, potentially affecting inertia and gravity. While much of >this remains theoretical, the underlying principle aligns with known
physics. The notion that localized time differentials could manifest as >anti-gravity is not inherently unscientific. It is a provocative
extension of established principles and invites further exploration into
the true nature of time and its relationship to motion, matter, and the >forces that shape our universe.

You went through soooo much posting this that you are not clear in
your posting, and contains incorrect statements...like for example:
mass and energy - curvature - gravity.

You wrote: Gravity, in general relativity, is described as the
curvature of spacetime


but that is not correct.

Gravity is NOT the curvature, it IS the

RESULT of the curvature.


i hope you don't teach dis stuff in skool...

garbage in...


results in rockets exploding during launch.


Gravity is NOT the "curvature", it IS the

*RESULT* of the curvature.



re�sult
/r?'z?lt/
noun
a consequence, effect, or outcome of something.
"the tower collapsed as a result of safety violations"

Gravity is NOT the "curvature", it IS the

*RESULT* of the curvature.

a consequence, effect, or outcome of something.



NOT the something, but the OUTCOME of something.


Would you believe...
no one told the teacher
what were her odds
of her dying in the
rocket ship!

The teacher died because the physics theachesr don't
understand...Physics!

The consequence of stupid teachers.


The people that work at NASA cheated in class! They bought the answers
to the test. They didn't do the homework.


OceanGate Netflix

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

Am Sonntag000027, 27.07.2025 um 18:03 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:

On 7/27/2025 1:59 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Street <street@shellcrash.com> wrote:

Time is not inherently linear. It is not merely a fourth axis in a fixed >>> spacetime model.

Time is what the clock says it is.

In the reality. In physics time is what a
relativistic idiot says it  is.

A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which
happens at a known fixed frequency.

But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.


Sure, we usually assume, that a day is 24 hours long.

But 'hour' was derived from the 24th part of a day.

We have some right to assume, that the rotation of Earth does not change abruptly or even slowly, hence we are entitled to assume, that the day
has always the same length.

But this is difficult to prove, if the Earth itself is also our main
'clock'.

Very long ago every noon some markings were carved into the early form
of a calendar.

These days were counted and we have this early calendar as an early form
of a clock.

Today much shorter intervals are countable and we have much better clocks.

But still we count events and calculate some sort of time values.

But most likely nature doesn't care about our clocks.


TH

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

Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:

A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which
happens at a known fixed frequency.

But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.

There is no alternative to this definition.

Sure, we usually assume, that a day is 24 hours long.

But 'hour' was derived from the 24th part of a day.

A _mean_ solar day is 24⋅60⋅60 seconds = 86400 seconds.
For a very long time this was the definition of a second.
But since the standard was one clock at Greenwich, it was
very impractical to sync clocks to the standard.
So the SI standard is based on the frequency of a hyper fine
transition in the Cs atom.

They made the new definition so that the length of a mean
solar day should be 86400 seconds.
But as of 2008 a mean solar day was 86400.002 SI seconds.
This is because the rotation of the Earth has slowed a little
since 1980, and maybe they made the new definition a bit too fast?

We have some right to assume, that the rotation of Earth does not change abruptly or even slowly, hence we are entitled to assume, that the day
has always the same length.

We don't have to assume, we know.

Atomic clocks running according to the SI-definition are more
stable than the rotation of the Earth. So we know that the angular
speed of Earth's rotation varies a little. In the long run it seems
to slow down.

The rate of the TAI is defined by an SI clock on the geoid.

As of 1 Jan 1972 the UTC was defined to be 10 seconds behind
the TAI. Leap seconds are inserted in UTC to keep the mean sun in
the prime meridian at 12:00.00 UTC. As of 1 Jan 2017 UTC was
37 seconds behind TAI.

See:
https://www.hko.gov.hk/en/gts/time/Historicalleapseconds.htm

Note that the time between each time a leap second is added varies
between 0.5 year and 5 years, which means that the angular
speed of Earth's rotation varies.

But this is difficult to prove, if the Earth itself is also our main
'clock'.

As long as clocks have existed, "the Earth itself" has not been
the "main clock". If you have a clock showing "local time", that
is that "the mean Sun" is in the south at 12 hours, then the time
showed by a sundial may show anything between 11:44 and 12:16.

That is because the length of a solar day varies between
86379 seconds and 86429 seconds. This is partly because Earth's
orbit is elliptical, and partly because the angle between the
ecliptic plane and the equatorial plane is 23.4⁰.

For centuries the rate of all clocks has been 86400 seconds
per mean solar day.
The solar day varies too much to be used as the time unit of
a clock.

Very long ago every noon some markings were carved into the early form
of a calendar.

These days were counted and we have this early calendar as an early form
of a clock.

Today much shorter intervals are countable and we have much better clocks.

But still we count events and calculate some sort of time values.

But most likely nature doesn't care about our clocks.

But modern people couldn't do without.

TH

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

On 7/30/2025 10:33 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:

A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which

happens at a known fixed frequency.

But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

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

In _physics_ "time" is some gedanken
delusion of some brainwashed religious
maniacs like yourself.
Anyone can check GPS, real clocks have
little in common with your absurd tales.

A _mean_ solar day is 24⋅60⋅60 seconds = 86400 seconds.
For a very long time this was the definition of a second.
But since the standard was one clock at Greenwich, it was
very impractical to sync clocks to the standard.
So the SI standard is based on the frequency of a hyper fine
transition in the Cs atom.

And, anyone can check GPS or another serious
time system - your ideological absurd is
ignored.

They made the new definition so that the length of a mean
solar day should be 86400 seconds.

A lie, as expected from a lying piece
of fanatic shit. You've admitted many
times that according to your wannabe
definition solar day at a GPS satellite
should be 86400.000034 seconds (AFAIR).

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

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:33:39 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:

A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which
happens at a known fixed frequency.

But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.

There is no alternative to this definition.

If time in physics is what we measure by clocks by definition, then
your time in physics will always be...imprecise.

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

Am Mittwoch000030, 30.07.2025 um 22:33 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:

A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which
happens at a known fixed frequency.

But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.

There is no alternative to this definition.

Time is what makes a clock tick and not the ticks themselves.

Time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

What physicists (or people in general) think or want is totally
irrelevant for nature.


...

TH

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

[Replying to sci.physics.relativity only.]

On 31/07/2025 18:08, Moshe Stavropoulos wrote:

Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.

There is no alternative to this definition.

amazing such new beginner crap out of you; time is not clocks, time flows with no clocks whatsoever; in this aspect clocks can be anything
transiting form a state to another state, along the macro domain.

then time is not "measurable", but rather *_registered_*; one use time to measure *_something_else_*. All measurements has a *_timestamp_*
associated with. If changes are measured, the least of two timestamps are
to be registered.

Well said. I'll have to amend my "nobody understands [physics]"...

Indeed, physics is *in* time (proper), or it's not physics.

-Julio

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

Den 31.07.2025 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Mittwoch000030, 30.07.2025 um 22:33 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:

A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which
happens at a known fixed frequency.

But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.

There is no alternative to this definition.

Time is what makes a clock tick and not the ticks themselves.

Time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

What physicists (or people in general) think or want is totally
irrelevant for nature.

This is not physics!
So why are posting to a physics news group?

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:56:16 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:33:39 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:

A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which
happens at a known fixed frequency.

But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.

There is no alternative to this definition.

If time in physics is what we measure by clocks by definition, then
your time in physics will always be...imprecise.

furthermore, you got clocks..whether a sundial, or mechanic clock -
both are based on sun time. and the sun is imprecise.
Then you gots t
t for time is
mathematics...
and numbers don't exist out there.

Time doesn't exist out there.

Time is an optical delusion.

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

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:56:16 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:33:39 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen" ><relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:

A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which
happens at a known fixed frequency.

But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.

There is no alternative to this definition.

If time in physics is what we measure by clocks by definition, then
your time in physics will always be...imprecise.

furthermore, you got clocks..whether a sundial, or mechanic clock -
both are based on sun time. and the sun is imprecise.
Then you gots t
t for time is
mathematics...
and numbers don't exist out there.

Hydrogen atoms for example don't have energy levels
without you around to count them?

Jan

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

Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 31.07.2025 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Mittwoch000030, 30.07.2025 um 22:33 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:

A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which
happens at a known fixed frequency.

But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.

There is no alternative to this definition.

Time is what makes a clock tick and not the ticks themselves.

Time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

What physicists (or people in general) think or want is totally
irrelevant for nature.

This is not physics!

Actually I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Why do you think, that time isn't a natural phenomenon?

So why are posting to a physics news group?

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
   a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we
measure.

Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices.

E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a
thermometer.

But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because temperature
also exists without any measurements.

This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an indicator
for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.

Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as
something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices.

That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature doesn't
take those measurements into consideration.

If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like. But
don't expect anybody do the same.


TH

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

Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
    a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we
measure.

Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices.

E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a
thermometer.

But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because temperature
also exists without any measurements.

This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an indicator
for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.

Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices.

That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature doesn't
take those measurements into consideration.

If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like. But
don't expect anybody do the same.

TH

Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my
questions?

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:31:31 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

If no, post in another news group.

one should not mistaken arrogance for intelligence.

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

On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:31:31 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
��� a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we
measure.

Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices.

E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a
thermometer.

But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because temperature
also exists without any measurements.

This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an indicator
for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.

Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as
something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices.

That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature doesn't
take those measurements into consideration.

If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like. But
don't expect anybody do the same.


TH

Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my
questions?

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There are no instruments that exist that measure time.


What flow of time is it on your watch?


Is Sunday Sun Day? Every day is Sunday.

What day it it? It's sunday.

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

Am Freitag000001, 01.08.2025 um 22:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
    a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we
measure.

Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices.

E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a
thermometer.

But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because
temperature also exists without any measurements.

This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an
indicator for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.

Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as
something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices.

That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature
doesn't take those measurements into consideration.

If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like.
But don't expect anybody do the same.


TH

Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my
questions?

Yes.

I told you already, that any quantity in nature is entirely independent
of any kind of measurements.

Since physics is a natural science, physics deals with natural
phenomena, hence also with quantities, which are not measured.

Man made devices like e.g. clocks are not part of nature, hence belong
to the realm, which deals with man made devices.

This is usually called 'engineering'.

Physics is in a way the foundation of engineering, but not equal in
methods and objectives.

Please answer the following questions:

no.

TH

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

Am Samstag000002, 02.08.2025 um 08:42 schrieb The Starmaker:

On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:31:31 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
    a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we
measure.

Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices.

E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a
thermometer.

But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because temperature >>> also exists without any measurements.

This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an indicator
for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.

Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as
something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices.

That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature doesn't
take those measurements into consideration.

If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like. But
don't expect anybody do the same.


TH

Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my
questions?

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There are no instruments that exist that measure time.

What flow of time is it on your watch?

Is Sunday Sun Day? Every day is Sunday.

What day it it? It's sunday.

Clocks count events of supposedly even frequency.

There are many different types of clocks.

The most simple clock counts only years.
A little more advanced is a calendar, which is used to count days.

But better clocks do exist, which could count much shorter intervals.

But they all have in common, that they are essentially counters, which
multiply the base frequency with that number and 'compute' some sort of
human readable time values.

Time is now, what makes these events flow in equal intervals.

That is actually hard to measure, because if time would start to flow
faster or slower, our clocks wouldn't notice that, because they depend
on time, however fast time flows.

TH

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

Den 02.08.2025 10:04, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Freitag000001, 01.08.2025 um 22:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
    a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we
measure.

Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices.

E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a
thermometer.

But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because
temperature also exists without any measurements.

This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an
indicator for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.

Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as
something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices.

That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature
doesn't take those measurements into consideration.

If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like.
But don't expect anybody do the same.


TH

Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my
questions?

Yes.

I told you already, that any quantity in nature is entirely independent
of any kind of measurements.

Since physics is a natural science, physics deals with natural
phenomena, hence also with quantities, which are not measured.

So according to you, physics is about natural phenomena which
are not measured.

Man made devices like e.g. clocks are not part of nature, hence belong
to the realm, which deals with man made devices.

And since all measuring instruments are man made,
they have no place in physics?

This is usually called 'engineering'.

OK, let me reformulate:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?





--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 11:05:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On 27 Jul 2025 11:14:52 GMT, Street <street@shellcrash.com> wrote:

Time is not inherently linear. It is not merely a fourth axis in a fixed >>spacetime model. Rather, it emerges as both a perceptual and physical >>construct tied to the rate of change within systems. When this rate of >>change deviates significantly�especially in contexts involving mass and >>velocity�it can affect how time passes relative to an observer, producing >>measurable physical effects. In some cases, this may even lead to >>gravitational anomalies.

Traditionally, physics has treated time as a dimension much like length, >>width, and height. This is the foundation of the spacetime model
introduced in Einstein�s theories of relativity. Yet there exists another >>interpretation that is equally grounded in scientific observation: that >>time is not a fixed background, but a derived property�a way of comparing >>how systems evolve. From the perspective of thermodynamics, time�s arrow >>points in the direction of increasing entropy, signifying that what we >>experience as the forward flow of time is actually a measure of >>irreversible change. In quantum mechanics, time behaves differently than
in classical systems, often not even functioning as a dynamic operator in >>the same way space does. Even in relativity, the passage of time is not >>absolute. Instead, time is observed to flow differently depending on >>relative speed and gravitational conditions.

Einstein�s special relativity shows that time slows down for objects
moving at high speeds. The faster something travels, the more slowly time >>passes for it relative to a stationary observer. General relativity
extends this further, showing that strong gravitational fields also slow >>down time. These well-documented phenomena reveal that time is not >>immutable�it stretches and contracts in response to mass and motion. It
is not strictly linear, but fluid and conditional, dependent on context
and relative conditions. This supports the view that time is
fundamentally tied to the rate of change rather than acting as an >>independent dimension.

On Earth, most of our experience occurs within a relatively stable >>gravitational field, and we tend to move at similar speeds. As a result, >>the rates of change we observe appear consistent and synchronized. This >>creates the illusion of linear, uniform time. However, this uniformity is >>local, not universal. A practical example is the necessity of correcting >>GPS satellite clocks for both gravitational and velocity-based time >>dilation. The technology depends on compensating for the slight but >>significant difference in the rate at which time passes at altitude and >>orbital speed compared to time on the surface of the Earth.

When we introduce systems involving rapid motion and concentrated mass, >>such as helicopter blades, we start to see more dramatic divergence in
the rate of change. Helicopter blades are made of dense material and
rotate at extremely high speeds. Although their tangential velocity is
far below the speed of light, they nonetheless experience minor but real >>time dilation. These effects can be calculated using special relativity. >>While small in absolute terms, they become meaningful when considered as
a differential from the Earth-normal time rate. The rotating blades are,
in effect, operating in a slightly different temporal frame from the >>surrounding environment.

Extrapolating from this, if high-mass, high-speed rotation can compress >>local time, then it could also produce distortions in inertia and
gravity. This is similar to ideas proposed in theoretical propulsion >>systems such as the Mach Effect and the Woodward drive, which posit that >>inertia and gravitational interaction are not fixed, but functions of >>changing energy states and time. In this framework, altering the rate of >>time locally could feasibly modify the experience of gravity.

Gravity, in general relativity, is described as the curvature of
spacetime caused by mass and energy. If mass-energy can influence the >>passage of time, then the reverse may also be true: manipulating >>time�through changes in mass distribution or velocity�could affect >>gravitational force. This leads to the possibility of creating conditions >>that mimic or reduce gravity. In other words, if helicopter blades or
other rotating mass systems can sufficiently alter their local time rate, >>they might generate a gravity-like reduction or repulsion. This
conceptual model forms a speculative but not baseless approach to >>understanding so-called anti-gravity effects.

Some experimental anomalies, like the Podkletnov effect, have fueled this >>hypothesis. In these controversial experiments, a spinning
superconducting disc appeared to reduce the weight of objects placed
above it. While unconfirmed and highly debated, such results suggest that >>the interaction between mass, motion, and local time rates could produce >>measurable changes in gravitational behavior. Another reference for this
is Eric Laithwaite, a British electrical engineer, became known for his >>work with linear induction motors and his controversial claims about >>gyroscopes and "anti-gravity."

Taken together, these observations support the idea that time is best >>understood not as a linear axis but as an emergent property of changing >>systems. When the rate of change departs significantly from the >>norm�particularly in high-mass, high-velocity systems�relativistic time >>dilation occurs, potentially affecting inertia and gravity. While much of >>this remains theoretical, the underlying principle aligns with known >>physics. The notion that localized time differentials could manifest as >>anti-gravity is not inherently unscientific. It is a provocative
extension of established principles and invites further exploration into >>the true nature of time and its relationship to motion, matter, and the >>forces that shape our universe.

You went through soooo much posting this that you are not clear in
your posting, and contains incorrect statements...like for example:
mass and energy - curvature - gravity.

You wrote: Gravity, in general relativity, is described as the
curvature of spacetime

but that is not correct.

Gravity is NOT the curvature, it IS the

RESULT of the curvature.

i hope you don't teach dis stuff in skool...

garbage in...

results in rockets exploding during launch.

Gravity is NOT the "curvature", it IS the

*RESULT* of the curvature.

re�sult
/r?'z?lt/
noun
a consequence, effect, or outcome of something.
"the tower collapsed as a result of safety violations"

Gravity is NOT the "curvature", it IS the

*RESULT* of the curvature.

a consequence, effect, or outcome of something.

NOT the something, but the OUTCOME of something.

Would you believe...
no one told the teacher
what were her odds
of her dying in the
rocket ship!

The teacher died because the physics theachesr don't
understand...Physics!

The consequence of stupid teachers.

The people that work at NASA cheated in class! They bought the answers
to the test. They didn't do the homework.

OceanGate Netflix

I forgpt to add..Computer Scientist, or AT department...


come on, these guys
who are suppose to read code...

don't know how to read code!!!!


Have you seen their resume?

Python
C
C++
Java
C#
Visual Basic .NET
JavaScript
SQL
Assembly language
PHP
R
Go
Classic Visual Basic
MATLAB
Swift
Delphi/Object Pascal
Ruby
Perl
Objective-C


you can throw in any computer language in
your resume, and they do!

GET THE MAUAL! PERL coders wanted!

Who are these people sending me emails that
say they want to redesign my website???

I don't see HTML on the list?


Oh yeah, i forgot...everybody knows HTML..
and
Python
C
C++
Java
C#
Visual Basic .NET
JavaScript
SQL
Assembly language
PHP
R
Go
Classic Visual Basic
MATLAB
Swift
Delphi/Object Pascal
Ruby
Perl
Objective-C

You're Hired!

Metaverse is hiring.

wats Metaverse?

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

Am Samstag000002, 02.08.2025 um 11:36 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 02.08.2025 10:04, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Freitag000001, 01.08.2025 um 22:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
    a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we
measure.

Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices. >>>>
E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a
thermometer.

But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because
temperature also exists without any measurements.

This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an
indicator for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.

Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as
something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices. >>>>
That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature
doesn't take those measurements into consideration.

If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like.
But don't expect anybody do the same.


TH

Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my
questions?

Yes.

I told you already, that any quantity in nature is entirely
independent of any kind of measurements.

Since physics is a natural science, physics deals with natural
phenomena, hence also with quantities, which are not measured.

So according to you, physics is about natural phenomena which
are not measured.

No!

You can measure all those quantities, but that is not a requirement.

Many things in nature are not measurable for one reason or the other,
but do still exist.

Physics deals also with distant stars, for instance, which are too far
away to measure them.

And, of course, we do not decide about existence by measuring something
(or not).>>

Man made devices like e.g. clocks are not part of nature, hence belong
to the realm, which deals with man made devices.

And since all measuring instruments are man made,
they have no place in physics?

No!

Devices belong to a realm, which is not nature. I would prefer to call
that 'engineering'.

Physicists use all sorts of devices, but would not necessarily build them.

This is usually called 'engineering'.

OK, let me reformulate:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
   a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

Physicists use clocks of various forms, technology and size.

But time does not use clocks!

This is so, because time is a natural phenomenon and nature does not use
any man-made devices.

TH

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