A clock does not measure existance or age time.
Spaceman
nothing more
It does not measure age or timing of Earth rotation.
It does not measure anything even close to such.
your clocks are broken.
not time..
time dilation is a clocks problem.
not times problem.
the second has not changed.
only the clocks counting of it has.
and it (the clock) is wrong and has changed.
The second remains the same.
All clocks that are built at the same time
all "exist" the same amount time.
no matter what they state on thier faces.
.
Clocks change.
time does not.
only a fool allows time to change.
might as well let the kilogram change too!
oh wait..
they do.. (mass increasing bologna)
<LOL>
mass and time remains the same,
and foolish physics still can't figure that simple thing out..
tis sad..
some people have overcome the brainwashing.
we will see them rise above the rest and
the time machines will all sink in time.
and Spaceships. (note not Spacetime ships)
will start to become more real.
Does anyone really know what time it is.
Does anybody really care about time.
Time knows it does not change rate.
so time is smarter than humans.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
http://www.realspaceman.com
news://realspaceman.net/spacemans.space
Richard
"Spaceman" <Spac...@realspaceman.com> wrote in message
news:ub5u6n8...@corp.supernews.com...
Clocks are used to gauge and mark this experience and work well.
Human beings cannot at this moment traverse the time line, as we are
concerned to measure passage of time is correct.
Spaceman
"Richard" <12...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8uvig$vdbaj$1...@ID-89874.news.dfncis.de...
> Wrong, the human being experiences the passage of time (Fact).
Wrong ,
the human being creates time and experiences reality,
FACT!
time does not exist anywhere and you can't experience time.
you experiance existance..
not time.
and time "as in existance" is constant for all.
existance time is absolute.
clock time is whatever the clock can do with it's motion.
> Clocks are used to gauge and mark this experience and work well.
No,
clocks used to guess at the existance timing work pretty well.
but they still break when in accelration or deccelration.
existance does not do such.
It exists, as an absolute existance.
one second always = 1 second.
> Human beings cannot at this moment traverse the time line, as we are
> concerned to measure passage of time is correct.
passage of time?
<LOL>
time is not real,
it can't move or pass or anything of the sort.
Do you know what abstract means?
I see you don't.
You best look it up.
Richard
experience by mechanical means and it synchronises our experience, whats the
issue.
Spaceman
> Time is just a word, to describe an experience if we choose to measure
that
> experience by mechanical means and it synchronises our experience, whats
the
> issue.
Tim is just a word now?
I thought you said humans experience time?
we experience words?
What's your issue?
you seem to be trolling
and still have not shown me that what I stated
is wrong at all.
yet you say wrong with twisting words that have no
bearing on what I state.
What is your issue?
Do you know how a clock works?
I just told you what it counts.
It does not count time itself as in age or existance.
It only guesses at such.
and it is the clock that is wrong ..
not time changing.
It's impossible to time travel in other words.
Only those who don't know what a clock does think they can still.
Randy Poe
[Items 10-15 from his standard cut-and-paste file].
A science fiction story I read once included, in passing,
3-D photos of loved ones that could engage in rudimentary
conversation. A traveller came across two of these
photos next to each other, locked into a permanent
looping conversation of about 5 sentences each.
We have several posters now who just periodically
belch up the same sentences, over and over. I envision
them locked in a room together like those two
3-D photos...
- Randy
Boris Mohar
wrote:
>
>"Richard" <12...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:a8v0td$v9tok$1...@ID-89874.news.dfncis.de...
>> Time is just a word, to describe an experience if we choose to measure
>that
>> experience by mechanical means and it synchronises our experience, whats
>the
>> issue.
>
>Tim is just a word now?
Who is Tim?
>I thought you said humans experience time?
>we experience words?
>
Experience is a word.
Water is a word. Do we drink words?
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:3CB30A48...@atl.lmco.com...
said absolutely nothing as usual.
figures.
Refuse to find out what time is doing and not doing.
<LOL>
Randy,
you are a fool.
Thanks for being one.
Spaceman
"Boris Mohar" <borism-no...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:5m46bu0to9rhjbrsk...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:29:34 -0400, "Spaceman" <Spac...@realspaceman.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Richard" <12...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:a8v0td$v9tok$1...@ID-89874.news.dfncis.de...
> >> Time is just a word, to describe an experience if we choose to measure
> >that
> >> experience by mechanical means and it synchronises our experience,
whats
> >the
> >> issue.
> >
> >Tim is just a word now?
>
> Who is Tim?
Tim is actually a word known as "time" but missing the e because
of my typing skills.
too bad you could not figure that out.
boy ..
your brain can't do anything without help huh?
<LOL>
> Experience is a word.
>
> Water is a word. Do we drink words?
I never said anything about time being just a word, I questioned his
statements of such.
you should point this drivel at the person who stated time is just a word.
I never said such ..
can't you read?
Don't you know what a question mark means?
too bad your belittlement sydrome made you think I did state it.
T oo bad your too stupid to see I merley questioned it.
your insultation is showing.
best hide it quick.
TB
> "Richard" <12...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a8v0td$v9tok$1...@ID-89874.news.dfncis.de...
>
>>Time is just a word, to describe an experience if we choose to measure
>>
> that
>
>>experience by mechanical means and it synchronises our experience, whats
>>
> the
>
>>issue.
>>
>
> Tim is just a word now?
> I thought you said humans experience time?
> we experience words?
>
> What's your issue?
> you seem to be trolling
You're the one that started the thread, ergo you're the one trolling.
Gahh! I've been hooked :-)
Time is what we call the duration between events.
Certain events appear to happen with regularity.
We can calibrate mechanical or atomic devices so that by counting their
periodic events we can measure the duration between any events with
arbitrary precision.
To this extent not only does time exist but clocks measure it.
-- TB
Randy Poe
Care to pick up on some of those threads you abandoned
when too much reality intruded?
Two off the top of my head:
- sound is electromagnetic
- Air Cerenkov Telescopes are not "in plain old air"
Patrick Reany
Spaceman wrote:
> A clock measures it'[s own internal motions and
> nothing more
>
> It does not measure age or timing of Earth rotation.
> It does not measure anything even close to such.
>
> your clocks are broken.
> not time..
>
> time dilation is a clocks problem.
> not times problem.
Time is an illusion; only clocks exist. In any case,
science deals with clocks, not with metaphysical
time.
Patrick
Xantrix
Your just havin a laugh aren't ya Wind up the physics types very funny :p
ca314159
> Spaceman wrote:
>
> > "Richard" <12...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a8v0td$v9tok$1...@ID-89874.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> >>Time is just a word, to describe an experience if we choose to measure
> >>
> > that
> >
> >>experience by mechanical means and it synchronises our experience, whats
> >>
> > the
> >
> >>issue.
> >>
> >
> > Tim is just a word now?
> > I thought you said humans experience time?
> > we experience words?
> >
> > What's your issue?
> > you seem to be trolling
>
>
> You're the one that started the thread, ergo you're the one trolling.
> Gahh! I've been hooked :-)
>
> Time is what we call the duration between events.
>
Can you define 'duration' and 'event' without using the word 'time' ?
> Certain events appear to happen with regularity.
If you can remember that they happened before.
>
> We can calibrate mechanical or atomic devices so that by counting their
> periodic events we can measure the duration between any events with
> arbitrary precision.
If that were the case we wouldn't need quantum or relativity theories.
But we'd sure need alot of memory space to remember whether or not
those infinitesimals were indeed counted and we'd need a very fast
relational database to add up time faster than it happens, otherwise
our poor sampling rate will cause temporal aliasing under the Nyquist
limit. In which case we'd need a relativity theory anyway for differences
between sampling rates and events.
Given that we can't even get chads right, can you really say
arbitrary precision ? Maybe particle physicists should be measuring
the national elections for us using qubits and probabilities
to represent votes.
> To this extent not only does time exist but clocks measure it.
Clocks don't measure time, they correlate memory configurations.
People weigh the times.
> -- TB
Patrick Reany
ca314159 wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
> > To this extent not only does time exist but clocks measure it.
>
> Clocks don't measure time, they correlate memory configurations.
> People weigh the times.
>
>
> > -- TB
So too does SR with the gamma factor. ;-)
Patrick
tj Frazir
Clocks run on energy and must afect more mass in a fast moving space
clock . And the energy presure it rn in is more in outer space and less
near earth where less energy expands.
Crypto Ground
> A clock measures it'[s own internal motions and
> nothing more
>
> It does not measure age or timing of Earth rotation.
> It does not measure anything even close to such.
>
> your clocks are broken.
> not time..
> Clocks change.
> time does not.
> mass and time remains the same,
> and foolish physics still can't figure that simple thing out..
> tis sad..
> some people have overcome the brainwashing.
> we will see them rise above the rest and
> the time machines will all sink in time.
> and Spaceships. (note not Spacetime ships)
> will start to become more real.
A clock is irrelevant to time, also the atomic clock. The clock has
been started at no comparison to anything. Time is always been here,
time is past present, and future together. The beginning of time
starts when there is matter.
Cryptoground
-crypto...@msn.com
Douglas Eagleson
Spaceman wrote:
You are confused about the purpose of a time
measurement. It is to measure a period of
events in relation to the period of the clock.
A period of events is a sequence or a flow of
falling water.
And to argue that a period of abstract time
does not exist because an abstract clock does
not exist is a fallacy. It is unprovable because
the purpose of abstract sequences is the act of
cognition of the events.
And the abstract form of thinking is the only
abstract seqeunce that we have to guide
our thought's outcomes. A clocks gives
a variable of cognition and the stability
of a radionuclide is another example of the
natural seqences in the observed world.
So why are you afraid to recognize sequences
with the behavior of relativity? It is
proven fact. You need to go get some hands on
time with a relativistic system.
Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, MD USA
Spaceman
> Gahh! I've been hooked :-)
No,
I posted some facts
and not one person has been able to show they are incorrect at all.
yet a lot of twisting of what I state has happened as usual.
> Time is what we call the duration between events.
No,
that would be event reaction time difference
.
not time itself.
time was invented to count the existance of the human race.
You seem to want it to change from that.
It was invented as an absolute.
you seem to weant to change that too.
Why not change the kilogram and the mile?
Oh yeah..
you do that to I suppose.
> Certain events appear to happen with regularity.
Yup and clocks guess at that timing.
they don't actually measure it.
they guess.
> We can calibrate mechanical or atomic devices so that by counting their
> periodic events we can measure the duration between any events with
> arbitrary precision.
and that is only the device that is counting itself.
not one device has counted time as what we invented it for.
a Day being counted.
an absolute...
Day.
twsit all you want.
I do know what Time is.
and how it works.
too bad you all like to give it more force than it has.
none.
> To this extent not only does time exist but clocks measure it.
Not even close.
What clock has counted the Earth revolutions I have been on Earth?
that is the time I have been on Earth.
not what a clock states.
Earth clock shows you are wrong all the time if you state
clocks measure time.
Spaceman
> Care to pick up on some of those threads you abandoned
> when too much reality intruded?
> Two off the top of my head:
>
> - sound is electromagnetic
> - Air Cerenkov Telescopes are not "in plain old air"
Why,
so you can twist a general statement of mine into some
wrong statement you have made up for it to be
instead of what I meant it to state?
Go away troll Randy.
your trolling me in another thread now too.
can't you see that is trolling.
Randy,
What does a clock measure?
Time?
<LOL>
fools!
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:3CB341AD...@asu.edu...
> Time is an illusion; only clocks exist. In any case,
> science deals with clocks, not with metaphysical
> time.
No,m
time is an abstract.
physics deals with the abstracts yet forgets that are abstracts.
<LOL>
If it would stop forgetting and remember time is an abstract
then it mnay actually move on soon and leanr more
instead of be in it's guessing stages.
it's funny I call it a guessing stage..
since..
just like the clock guesses about Earth time..
they are stuck until they figure out.
time is an abstract and should not be changed at all
if you want to use it correctly as it was designed for.
to be an absolute.
one second always equalling one second.
just like one meter always = one meter.
etc.
changing an "absolute measurement" is your probelm.
not mine.
you will be crashing into asteroids.
not me.
<LOL>
Spaceman
news:2d15b363.02040...@posting.google.com...
> A clock is irrelevant to time, also the atomic clock. The clock has
> been started at no comparison to anything. Time is always been here,
> time is past present, and future together. The beginning of time
> starts when there is matter.
Nope,
matter is not needed for time to start or end.
time is an abstract.
you can create it in your head.
The entire Universe will work without us timing it.
no clocks or time needed.
time is irrelevant to the Universe's existance.
time does not exist.
It is an abstract.
Why is everyone afraid of that word still?
anyone daring enough to post the meaning
of abstract and then say time exists as a reality?
<LOL>
you are all lost in time.
I suggest building your own clock
and then telling me the clock tells time.
from scratch..
go build.
then you will see.
just as me
the clock does not count time as existance at all.
and does not count time at all.
since time for me.
is existance
The Earth is counting it great!
good thing GPS ignores the dilations too!
or we would all be off time for our rendevous.
Spaceman
"Douglas Eagleson" <eagleso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3CB32AAB...@yahoo.com...
> You are confused about the purpose of a time
> measurement. It is to measure a period of
> events in relation to the period of the clock.
No,
you are confused about what time weas invented for to begin with
you are wrecking an invention that was and still is the best.
but you are not realizing that the INVENTION is what is
changing rate.
and not time itself as we invented it for.
to be on time.
<snipped massibve bologna that you twist and still
ignore What we invented time for.
TO BE ON TIME.
Good thing your not running the railroad tracks
they would still be crahsing today with your thoughts on time.
good thing they think like I do and ignore
all changes in time.
and use an absolute synced time for the entire Universe.
Those railroad guys are a lot smarter than physicists I see.
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Xantrix" <tom.ride@(spam)btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a8vhqt$j1i$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> Your just havin a laugh aren't ya Wind up the physics types very funny :p
Note.
all the time travel crackpots come fighting..
<G>
Big paint marks on thier heads now!
<LOL>
too bad thier ships are sinking faster than ever in time.
<G>
Randy Poe
I forgot:
- evaporation of water separates it into component
hydrogen and oxygen
- Randy
Jan C. Bernauer
<Spac...@realspaceman.com> wrote:
>
>"TB" <tbrow...@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:3CB329D7...@yahoo.NOSPAM.com...
>> You're the one that started the thread, ergo you're the one trolling.
>> Gahh! I've been hooked :-)
>
>No,
>I posted some facts
>and not one person has been able to show they are incorrect at all.
>yet a lot of twisting of what I state has happened as usual.
Undisputabel facts like sound is e/m?
>> Time is what we call the duration between events.
>
>No,
>that would be event reaction time difference
Your definiton of time differs from everyone else´s.
>time was invented to count the existance of the human race.
>You seem to want it to change from that.
If you want it that way: event 1: begining of existance of human race.
event 2: now.
So, the existance of human race is the time between event 1 and 2.
>It was invented as an absolute.
Time is perceived to be constantly increasing.
Earth has many timezones, so alone from THAT use, it´s not absolute.
>you seem to weant to change that too.
>Why not change the kilogram and the mile?
That´s another main effect of SR.
> Oh yeah..
>you do that to I suppose.
You got that right.
>
>
>> Certain events appear to happen with regularity.
>
>Yup and clocks guess at that timing.
>they don't actually measure it.
>they guess.
As as ruler does. No ruler is exact. It just guesses what a inch is.
>> We can calibrate mechanical or atomic devices so that by counting their
>> periodic events we can measure the duration between any events with
>> arbitrary precision.
>
>and that is only the device that is counting itself.
>not one device has counted time as what we invented it for.
>a Day being counted.
>an absolute...
>Day.
The length of a day is changing. Even the old roman caesars did know
that.
>twsit all you want.
>I do know what Time is.
>and how it works.
>too bad you all like to give it more force than it has.
>none.
>
>> To this extent not only does time exist but clocks measure it.
>
>Not even close.
>What clock has counted the Earth revolutions I have been on Earth?
>that is the time I have been on Earth.
>not what a clock states.
Your body can be used as a clock.
>Earth clock shows you are wrong all the time if you state
>clocks measure time.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
TB
> TB <tbrow...@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message news:<3CB329D7...@yahoo.NOSPAM.com>...
>
>>Spaceman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Richard" <12...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:a8v0td$v9tok$1...@ID-89874.news.dfncis.de...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Time is just a word, to describe an experience if we choose to measure
>>>>
>>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>
>>>>experience by mechanical means and it synchronises our experience, whats
>>>>
>>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Tim is just a word now?
>>>I thought you said humans experience time?
>>>we experience words?
>>>
>>>What's your issue?
>>>you seem to be trolling
>>>
>>
>>You're the one that started the thread, ergo you're the one trolling.
>>Gahh! I've been hooked :-)
>>
>>Time is what we call the duration between events.
>>
>>
>
> Can you define 'duration' and 'event' without using the word 'time' ?
Sure, although "event" seems kind of fundamental.
An event is an occurence, a happening that can be
detected/observed/seen/felt/or otherwise measured and/or counted.
Given a single location and two distinct and distinguishable events that
occur in that single location, the separation between those events is
the duration.
We call this duration "time" and measure it by its magnitude as compared
to whatever standards we chose to define; the rotation of the earth,
swings of a pendulum, vibrations of a quartz crystal, etc.
>
>
>>Certain events appear to happen with regularity.
>>
>
> If you can remember that they happened before.
I can.
>
>
>>We can calibrate mechanical or atomic devices so that by counting their
>>periodic events we can measure the duration between any events with
>>arbitrary precision.
>>
>
> If that were the case we wouldn't need quantum or relativity theories.
Non-sequitur.
>
> But we'd sure need alot of memory space to remember whether or not
> those infinitesimals were indeed counted and we'd need a very fast
> relational database to add up time faster than it happens, otherwise
> our poor sampling rate will cause temporal aliasing under the Nyquist
> limit. In which case we'd need a relativity theory anyway for differences
> between sampling rates and events.
>
> Given that we can't even get chads right, can you really say
> arbitrary precision ? Maybe particle physicists should be measuring
> the national elections for us using qubits and probabilities
> to represent votes.
My point is that we can choose among measuring devices that have a wide
range of precision and that what precision we have in measuring time is
arbitrary -- it depends on our measuring device. I was not trying to
say that we can arbitrarily achieve *any* desired precision (e.g.
infinite precision).
>
>
>>To this extent not only does time exist but clocks measure it.
>>
>
> Clocks don't measure time, they correlate memory configurations.
> People weigh the times.
They measure time as we have defined it and as we use it and that's my
only point. Clocks measure time in the same way as a meter-stick
measures widths; both are merely comparisons of things we have defined
against things that can be measured.
-- TB
TB
> "TB" <tbrow...@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:3CB329D7...@yahoo.NOSPAM.com...
>
>>Time is what we call the duration between events.
>>
>
> No,
> that would be event reaction time difference
What you call "reaction time difference" is what I'm calling the
duration between events and is some specific amount of "time".
> .
> not time itself.
> time was invented to count the existance of the human race.
Bah! That is so anthrocentric and archaic! The fact that events happen
and do so with some "distance" between them is true even before the
human race came into being, before our sun even coalesced and ignited.
Sure, we (as a race) probably started thinking about time because we
noted the periodicity of some pretty important events in our life; the
day/night cycle, the motion of the stars, the seasons in the year. And
from this observation we started making measurements and started making
devices that would provide us with measurements easily.
But to insist on limiting yourself to that view of time seems very,
well..., limiting.
> You seem to want it to change from that.
> It was invented as an absolute.
No, even if we accept your definition of time as merely our "invention"
to explain the rotation of the earth around it's axis and the rotation
of the earth around the sun, etc., it could hardly be called absolute.
Not only have the "time" of these events been changed over the years
since they were, er..., "invented" but these events are changing anyway,
albeit very, very slowly.
> you seem to weant to change that too.
> Why not change the kilogram and the mile?
> Oh yeah..
> you do that to I suppose.
>
>
>
>>Certain events appear to happen with regularity.
>>
>
> Yup and clocks guess at that timing.
> they don't actually measure it.
> they guess.
No, they measure it. But there is some limit to the precision of that
measurement. So..., although it seems a quaint and somewhat
anthropomorphic way to put it, I guess you can say it this way but just
realize then that we have some clocks that are extremely good at
guessing! :-)
>
>
>
>>We can calibrate mechanical or atomic devices so that by counting their
>>periodic events we can measure the duration between any events with
>>arbitrary precision.
>>
>
> and that is only the device that is counting itself.
> not one device has counted time as what we invented it for.
> a Day being counted.
> an absolute...
> Day.
>
> twsit all you want.
> I do know what Time is.
> and how it works.
> too bad you all like to give it more force than it has.
> none.
"Time heals all wounds" [anon.]
"This thing all things devours:
Birds, beasts, trees, flowers;
Gnaws iron, bites steel;
Grinds hard stones to meal;
Slays king, ruins town,
And beats high mountain down"
... "Time" [J.R.R. Tolkein, "The Hobbit"]
:-)
>
>
>>To this extent not only does time exist but clocks measure it.
>>
>
> Not even close.
> What clock has counted the Earth revolutions I have been on Earth?
> that is the time I have been on Earth.
> not what a clock states.
> Earth clock shows you are wrong all the time if you state
> clocks measure time.
Total baloney James! If your parents had wanted they could have setup a
special clock for you and started it at the exact moment of your birth.
This clock would then give you the total "time" that you have been on
Earth.
Oh... you want the total Earth revolutions... well, just convert from
whatever the clock is showing to days. You can do basic math, can't
you? :-)
-- TB
TB
And don't forget:
- Atoms out in space "spread out" so that the electrons are
infinitely far away from the nucleus because of the reduced
pressure.
- Electrons are made of a bunch of tinier stuff and we see it
all the time when we smash them in particle accelerators.
and the original,
- Travel faster than the speed of light is possible because you
can add 10,000 to 186,000 and basic math therefore proves FTL.
-- TB
Oriel36
Douglas,
Keeping posting on that same theme and give future generations
something to smile about.
You would never be capable of figuring out the apparent acceleration
of cosmic expansion through relativistic concepts and that rotation
can be infered from acceleration.Despite appearances that the Sun was
orbiting the Earth,Copernicus infered planetary rotation,likewise
acceleration is the new version of this theme but is to the nth degree
more intricate to discern.
It has taken me 6 months to work out expansion/rotation (no disrespect
to another poster) and that the obstacle is the SR worldview that
relies on clocks but does not take into account that distances vary
with each second that elapses and insofar as the outer rim of a
rotational system covers more distance than at the axis of rotation,it
looks for all the world like acceleration.
All the other elements come into play insofar as we are surrounded to
past observance in all directions (ditto;acceleration),that current
models splitting the evolution of the cosmos into dual
perspectives,that SR is a limitation that conceals rather than reveals
the true structure and motion of the cosmos,in short there is so much
more interesting avenues other than the aether/relativity conundrum
but so far there exists such a blinkered approach,and which your post
is typical,that few are willing or capable of standing outside the
current circle or adopting fresh perspectives nessecary to make sense
of the apparent cosmic acceleration.In fact,relativity would try to
explain acceleration away to prop up the SR concept like the
flat-Earth theorist would to prop up their view.
Edward Green
> Spaceman wrote: ...
> Care to pick up on some of those threads you abandoned
> when too much reality intruded?
I just came across a great sig, which went something like this:
"The problem with entering into discussions with strangers on the net
is that you usually end up talking to arrogant 16-year olds with an
infinite amount of free-time, or people who simulate them".
ca314159
I must be getting old and borish because sentences start to
look like algebra equations to me:
An X is an Y that can be Z or otherwise P and/or Q.
A "second" is an "occurance" that can be "detected" or
otherwise "measured" and/or "counted".
A second is an event ?
Time is the duration between seconds ?
I try to fit your word equation in as many ways
as possible to figure out where it makes sense and
where it doesn't or whether it needs more resolution.
But hey, if you're comfortable with your definition of a clock,
that's all that really matters. I'm just pointing out there're
are other angles and Spaceman is justified in trying to explore
them.
Crypto Ground
> "Crypto Ground" <crypto...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:2d15b363.02040...@posting.google.com...
> > A clock is irrelevant to time, also the atomic clock. The clock has
> > been started at no comparison to anything. Time is always been here,
> > time is past present, and future together. The beginning of time
> > starts when there is matter.
> Nope,
> matter is not needed for time to start or end.
> time is an abstract.
That is true, I retract my statement, "The beginning of time
starts when there is matter."
-Crypto Ground
crypto...@msn.com
Spaceman
"ca314159" <ca31...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:400040fc.02041...@posting.google.com...
><snipped>
> I'm just pointing out there're
> are other angles and Spaceman is justified in trying to explore
> them.
It's sad that some don't see that.
Thanks !
of course.
they can think a clock measures time all they want.
but unitl they get a bucket full and show me the clock measuring it.
I won't believe them <G>
The most sad part is they ignore the Big clock and
they ignore what we invented time for to begin with.
To be "on time".
Time was invented as an absolute.
(1 day always equalling 1 day)
those that change that, are
absolutely wrong about time and all they spout about it.
and have no clue about how clocks work
or what they actually count.
I have built a clock.
and I know the clock does not measure time itself.
It can't...
for time itself ..
does not exist.
It's an abstract.
and always will be.
Patrick Reany
Spaceman wrote:
> "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3CB341AD...@asu.edu...
> > Time is an illusion; only clocks exist. In any case,
> > science deals with clocks, not with metaphysical
> > time.
Just a hyperbole on my part! ;-)
>
>
> No,m
> time is an abstract.
> physics deals with the abstracts yet forgets that are abstracts.
> <LOL>
>
There are three notions of time to consider:
1) clock time
2) time as a thing in itself apart from human consciousness
(metaphysical time)
3) abstract, formal, theoretical time which is commonly
used as an independent variable in physics
In physics only 1) and 3) are of any use at all!
Why, you ask? Because In physical theories
involving the measurement of time, theoretical
time must be so constructed as to conform to
what actual clocks read. Metaphysical time
never enters into the picture.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
Patrick Reany wrote:
Oh, I forgot about "time in a bottle," but
it doesn't find much use either in physics.
;-)
Patrick
Boris Mohar
wrote:
>
>"ca314159" <ca31...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
>news:400040fc.02041...@posting.google.com...
>><snipped>
>> I'm just pointing out there're
>> are other angles and Spaceman is justified in trying to explore
>> them.
>
>It's sad that some don't see that.
>Thanks !
There is medication available for your depression.
>of course.
>they can think a clock measures time all they want.
>but unitl they get a bucket full and show me the clock measuring it.
>I won't believe them <G>
Buy me some time.
>The most sad part is they ignore the Big clock and
>they ignore what we invented time for to begin with.
You mean like Big Ben?
>To be "on time".
>Time was invented as an absolute.
>(1 day always equalling 1 day)
On Mars too?
>those that change that, are
>absolutely wrong about time and all they spout about it.
>and have no clue about how clocks work
>or what they actually count.
If it goes tock-tick is it going backwards?
>I have built a clock.
>and I know the clock does not measure time itself.
You forgot to wind it.
ca314159
> "ca314159" <ca31...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
> news:400040fc.02041...@posting.google.com...
> ><snipped>
> > I'm just pointing out there're
> > are other angles and Spaceman is justified in trying to explore
> > them.
>
> The most sad part is they ignore the Big clock and
> they ignore what we invented time for to begin with.
Lunch time ? Birthday parties ? Wedding anniversaries ? ...
Clocks don't just measure the bad times.
> I have built a clock.
> and I know the clock does not measure time itself.
Then you know putting too much or too little oil or
too much or too little friction in a clock,
and it doesn't work.
I've made pocket watch escapements and fusee chains from scratch.
I don't like making gears. Maybe that's my personal problem.
To me it's monotonous, noisy and it takes alot of maintained discipline.
I'm spoiled and eat too much sugar for that.
I'm very glad and appreciative that there are people who can make
gears and gear trains and know how many teeth to put on them, and why.
They're not unlike the people who wove the cloth I wear to keep from
getting cold, or farmed the earth for the food I buy in the supermarket,
or made the plumbing that brings me water...
I'm certainly not going to tell them about The Big Clock without
feeling somewhat ashamed.
> It can't...
> for time itself ..
> does not exist.
> It's an abstract.
> and always will be.
In a manner of speaking, time is alot like burning candles and
people living out their lives, but the physicists who made your PC,
the electricity that drives it, and the internet, ...
weren't always working on that level of abstraction.
There can be a practical value to such macroscopic theorizing,
but it's subject to the same problems as microscopic or telescopic
illusions when it's used out of context.
If you want to be the Van Gogh of Time that's fine, but just remember,
this is a Realist gallery. You're not going to be very welcome here.
At best, you might interest some people in 'quantum surrealism'
but that has a language and culture of it's own.
Realism is just as much an artform as Impressionism:
http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=estes+realism&hc=0&hs=0
TB
How about people who have "too much time on their hands?" :-)
-- TB