=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
>
> W dniu 05.03.2024 o 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.

--
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 wrote:
>
> =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
> >
> > W dniu 05.03.2024 o 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 -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
> > >
> > > W dniu 05.03.2024 o 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 -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
> > > >
> > > > W dniu 05.03.2024 o 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?

I just took the battery
out of the clock.
Time has stopped.

No more time.

I don't know what time it is ...Now.

wait a minute...isn't always Now????

i don't need a clock
to tell me what time
it is now, it's always now!

i need to put the battery back in
so i'll know what time it is...now.

okay, i know what time it is now.

it's 12 O'clock now.

i got the real time..

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Am 06.03.2024 um 08:44 schrieb The Starmaker:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
>>>>
>>>> W dniu 05.03.2024 o 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 flow of time is assumed to be constant, hence constant frequency
processes are assumed to exist.

But relativity claims, this is not the case and time can shrink and expand.

But how could we know, if time runs slower, if all clocks also run
slower????

I personally support the idea of local time, which is always flowing
forward in the local environment, but which is not universal.

The transit from one 'time domaine' to another is 'a curve in the
spacetime continuum'.

('a curved path in the spacetime continuum' is a fancy name for
'acceleration'.)

So acceleration has an effect on the flow and direction of the local
time in an accelerated environment.

We can actually see this in the so called 'Pioneer anomaly' if we regard
the Pioneer probe as heavily accelerated (in rocket start and fly byes).

TH

TH

On 3/6/2024 3:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 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.

Once there was a rubber sheeting manufacturer with
inconsistent equipment.
Where the sheeting was measured out
to be packaged and sold,
the tension on the tape was never the same.
One day, twice the tension and half as much
sheeting per foot.
The next day,
half the tension, twice the sheeting.

But the manufacturer used some of the sheeting itself
as a ruler to measure out a package.worth of
rubber sheeting, and kept the ruler at the same tension,
whatever it was, as the sheeting being packaged.

The changing ruler measured the changing sheeting
but the packages going out the door were the same,
because they changed the same.

And they all lived happily ever after.

> The flow of time is assumed to be constant,
> hence constant frequency processes are
> assumed to exist.

I think that a less stringent assumption
is made, and is sufficient,
that all these processes have constant lengths
_when measured by each other_

And that sort of constancy can actually be disproved.
I think that trying to do that is part of the job of
various national entities around the world.

Thomas Heger wrote:

> 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.
>> How do you measure a second before?
>>
> The flow of time is assumed to be constant, hence constant frequency
> processes are assumed to exist. But relativity claims, this is not the
> case and time can shrink and expand. But how could we know, if time runs
> slower, if all clocks also run slower????

lol. Incredibly, these usenet users relativists are abandoning relativity
big time. Not a wonder. That Einstine was a disgusting excuse for a human
being, abandoning his family, his children and his intelligent wife, for
what. To sleep in bed with his cousin. What a fucking idiot. I doubt he
had the basic brain required to manipulate relativity. Not even his
theory. Obviously. Abandoning relativity?? Give me a break.

𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆’𝘀_𝘄𝗶𝗳𝗲_𝘀𝗻𝘂𝗯𝘀_𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻_–_𝗪𝗮𝗣𝗼
The Ukrainian first lady has reportedly turned down an invitation to
Thursday’s State of the Union address, citing a tight schedule
https://r%74.com/news/593867-ukrainian-first-lady-snubs-biden-invitation/

Does not want biden sniffing her up anymore most likely

the wife of the ukraininan president has an office?! lol... She is not
elected nor with a public job. Her only "achievement" was to marry the
fucking actor, acting president with his former 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺.

So Zelenskaya hates Navalny more than she loves Biden?

Give her the $60 billion first... something for something

Jim Burns wrote:

> 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.

that's why atomic clocks are used, assuming shorter periods / duty_cycles
outputs more accuracy, to be feed to a clock.

𝗔𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗔𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗺𝘀_𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗸_𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗯𝗮𝘀𝘀_–_𝗠𝗢𝗗
The duel between a T-72B3 and US-supplied armor occurred not far from
Avdeevka, the Russian Defense Ministry has said
https://r%74.com/russia/593871-abrams-tank-destroyed-donbass/

Trump is right - the Mexicans could take the US over - Abrams won't stop
them! A brigade of illegal dishwashers is all they need.

Abrams arena is now open - on display Americrap military hardware at its
very best!

'The tank “was knocked out in one shot by the crew of a T-72 B3,”'

notice that a 1972 Russian tank (that's the meaning of "72") worth more
than a brand new American tank.

W dniu 06.03.2024 o 08:17, The Starmaker pisze:
> =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 05.03.2024 o 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?

The one matching TAI.

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 Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> W dniu 05.03.2024 o 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 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.

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.

How would you measure "time"?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

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.

--
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 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 -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

W dniu 06.03.2024 o 19:42, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
> 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.

And the _physics_ "time" has no meaning, poor halfbrain.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> 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

Here is another newsserver..

I don't have a cover. I'm not anonymous . I don't hide my IP or anything
of that nature.

and i don't change my handle to pretend to be someone else.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

On 3/6/2024 3:09 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
> Here is another newsserver..
>
>
> I don't have a cover. I'm not anonymous . I don't hide my IP or anything
> of that nature.
>
>
> and i don't change my handle to pretend to be someone else.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Not my business anyway. But don't curse at me again from your paganini
account. It'll come to haunt you.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

Am 06.03.2024 um 16:29 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> 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 Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> W dniu 05.03.2024 o 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 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 Poincaré) for my 'book':

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

The idea is called 'structured spacetime'.

There spacetime of GR is assumed to exist, while material objects are
'timelike stable patterns' (made of and within spacetime of GR).

This construct was used to connect GR and QM, because it would allow
'relativistic particles'.

The idea is, that matter is only matter within the own 'time domain',
while being perceived as radiation outside.

It's kind of tricky, but would allow to connect to put GR and QM into a
single framework.

The unusual approach was, that I started at the side of GR and tried to
build particles (of QM) out of spacetime (instead of trying to build
gravity from particles).

TH

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 Poincaré) 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:
>
>>>> 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 Poincaré) 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.

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.

(To understand this picture of an 'angle of the axis of time' you would
need to read my 'book'.)

For instance I explain the Pioneer anomaly this way:

the Pioneer probe has been acceleated heavily, due to rocket start from
Earth and a number of fly-byes. This caused the local time-axis of the
probe to tilt a little bit away from Earth time.

So the probe is too slow (in Earth measures), while it is perfectly ok
in its own measures.

This is similar to e.g. two equal trains on two tracks in a small angle,
which start parallel and then curve a little away.

Now seen from each train the other is seeminly too slow, because the
tracks are no longer parallel, but not because the other one is slow.

TH

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 Poincaré) 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:
> 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 Poincaré) 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.

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.

Such regions are invisible and may eventually drift right through our
world and we could not see them.

I use the catch phrase 'universe around the corner' for this effect
(instead of 'parallel universe').

>>
>> 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?

I regard matter as 'timelike stable patterns'.

This includes 'timelike', hence matter is 'frame dependent'.

This is a very unusual concept, hence you should read about my idea in
my 'book':

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

TH
> Does a rock do? What for?
>

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.

𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱_𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻_𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿_–_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 lol
Dmitry Kuleba may soon lose his job, as Kiev grows unhappy about the
diplomatic service
https://r%74.com/russia/593980-kuleba-dismissal-reports-ukraine/

remove 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 actor zelensky and sieze all his overseas increasing
wealth

Kuleba forgot to pay 10% to the big guy, the bidona.

First coke head porn star dictator, who needs ministers that you have to
share the corrupt kickbacks with?

The dwarf should just close the department of begging altogether...the end
is near.

It's a fiasco in Kiev and in Washington DC... Things farts apart.

Paranoia often comes with snorting too much coke.

Great! 𝗠𝘂𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 and get a nice retirement
villas in the U.K just like Zaluzny did. You will never live a peaceful
day in your life, they are all dead men walking. They betrayed their
people for handouts.

joe Biden is in fact the president of Ukraine. Zelensky is just the
beggar, the nazi dog raised and fed to bite for Joe Biden. Joe Biden has
turned Ukraine into a nazi entity, just like the Jewish entity in the ME,
to destroy the humanity for Joe Biden.

Start counting end days for this comedian - Zelensky.

For a 42 year old, he looks a lot closer to mid-50s. This happens when
you’re forced to partake in the cocaine parties with your boss

Kuleba is being fired because he asked Wang Yi for help at the Munich
security conference. Zelensky has gone mad. Kuleba is no good but at least
recognize reality.

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.

Unfortunately, this "occurs always with the same frequency" is very
difficult to prove.

Since certain atoms emit waves with always a certain frequency, I would
suggest, that such atoms are 'frame dependent' themselves.

This would create a 'time domaine', which serves as local environment
and dictates the time there.

Now no object can escape its own 'bubble', because in other bubbles they
could get anihilated by the strange time in such other worlds.

TH