The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> > Am 01.03.2024 um 07:25 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
> >
> > >>
> > >>> The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
> > >>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
> > >>
> > >>> That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
> > >>> the second.
> > >>
> > >>> Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
> > >>> certain atoms.
> > >>
> > >>> But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the
> > >>> underlying frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
> > >>
> > >>> But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
> > >>> these frequencies are universally constant or not.
> > >>
> > >>> This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
> > >>> process, which frequency we like to measure.
> > >>
> > >> This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
> > >> debated on these forums: What is a clock?
> > >
> > > https://www.bing.com/search?q=clock+picture&form=ANNTH1&refig=7f26d3e3f0dd44458d7e38ba627e82c5&pc=U531
> > >
> > > These are, poor halfbrain.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > All of these do not show time!
> >
> > Dates belong to time values, too, because time is not only counting the
> > hours, minutes and seconds within a single day.
> >
> > TH
>
> does time flow? how do you 'detect' the flow??
>
> oh, oh, i'm running out of time! does time run?
>
> if arrow of time, where is the bow?
>

Does time...move????

Guys like Jim Pennoino would say, "Well, it depends on your defintion with the word "Does".

easy does it
babble
babble
babble

Spot does it
does John
Mary does

Then Jim Pennoino gives a definition of Time:

"Well, it depends on your defintion with the word "Time"".

Time is a fundamental dimension in which events occur in a linear fashion, perceived as the progression of existence and the sequence of changes.
In the realm of theoretical physics, particularly in the context of general relativity and quantum mechanics, time is often described as a coordinate
parameter that, along with spatial coordinates, defines the four-dimensional spacetime continuum. Time's nature is intricately linked to the fabric of spacetime,
influencing the behavior of matter and energy, and is subject to various conceptual interpretations and mathematical formulations, including its
possible quantization and entanglement with other fundamental forces.

Do you think if i go to see the wizard he would give me a brain?

Does time..."*MOVE*"????

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

Le 05/04/2024 à 18:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am 04.04.2024 um 04:18 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
>> Le 03/04/2024 à 16:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>> Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
>>>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book'
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>
> ...
>
>> It is some 100 times better than the one used before. Much less power
>> consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided
>> missile at hypersonic speeds.
>>
>> As for my gun, check out
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
>> Follow the link to the 2-sec video.
>>
>>>>
>>>> and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges.
>>
>> Both are nonsense to me.
>> When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also busted.
>> Aether is back, filling the infinite universe.
>>
>> I hope you realise that one day.
>
> I have actually written a longish critique of 'On the electrodynamics of
> moving bodies'
> (here:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view )
>
> and know what you mean.
>
> But I think, that relativity is not entirely wrong.

It is entirely wrong from top to bottom.

It is not science, but Jewish dogma to get rid of the Arya notion of aum
(aether) pervading the universe.

So to begin with, Einstein et al were mocked and ridiculed just as I am
today, by the establishment.

The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to
politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear of
nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great
energies released are due to e=mcc.

> It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed very
> often:

It is nonsense, period.
>
> we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both real.

A dogmatic assertion.
There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense.
Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go on
two different paths and meet at different times at the same place, causing
interference.
But that does not mean that time goes backwards.
>
> Which time is forward, that is debatable, hence both are and the other
> one is in relative motion 'backwards'.

There is ONLY forward time, or NO time in situations where there is no
change. However even in such situations outside the situation the estimate
of time can be done, by those in situations where things do change.
>
> About QM I had to criticise a few points, too.
>
> That was mainly the particle concept itself.
>
> Particles are assumed to be lasting entities, created shortly after the
> big bang.

Another dogmatic assertion, the big bang. It is only a theory. How can a
theory become accepted like fact? Most unscientific.
>
> But I found a counter-example: Growing Earth.

Another nonsense. Earth is not growing.
>
> Since the Earth is in fact growing, the idea of lasting particles cannot
> be true.

The Earth is not in fact growing, save in the minds of certain esteemed
theological crackpots pretending to be scientists.
>
> So, in a way, I had to strike a few assumptions, but maintain the idea
> itself (of GR and QM).
>
> It's not my business anyhow, since what I tried to do, that is finding
> the connection between GR and QM and didn't attempt to justify these
> branches of physics.

While relativity is rubbish, QM may have some use in certain applications.
Similarly, relativity is useful when we assume a still Earth, with
conformal transformations of matter around it showing apparent
relativistic effect. Like Doppler may be explained with shortened or
lengthened wavelengths, and indeed to the observer the waves look long or
short, but not to third party seeing the flow.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
>
>
> TH
>>

Am 06.04.2024 um 02:07 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
> Le 05/04/2024 à 18:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> Am 04.04.2024 um 04:18 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
>>> Le 03/04/2024 à 16:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>> Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
>>>>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book'
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>> ...
>>
>>> It is some 100 times better than the one used before. Much less power
>>> consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided
>>> missile at hypersonic speeds.
>>>
>>> As for my gun, check out
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
>>> Follow the link to the 2-sec video.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges.
>>>
>>> Both are nonsense to me.
>>> When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also
>>> busted.
>>> Aether is back, filling the infinite universe.
>>>
>>> I hope you realise that one day.
>>
>> I have actually written a longish critique of 'On the electrodynamics
>> of moving bodies'
>> (here:
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view )
>>
>> and know what you mean.
>>
>> But I think, that relativity is not entirely wrong.
>
> It is entirely wrong from top to bottom.

'relativity' is actually an undisputable fact, because everything moves
relative to something else.

It's such a simple fact, that hardly anybody can reject it.

There exist another view, which is based on Newton's absolute space,
which would allow to defince velocity in respect to the universe.

This view is actually the position of Einstein in SRT, even if it is
self-contradicting.

We can see this in the use of velocity v without definition of a
reference point, in respect to which velocity is measured.

This would require an absolute space, which Einstein declared to not exist.

> It is not science, but Jewish dogma to get rid of the Arya notion of aum
> (aether) pervading the universe.

Religion and science are not exactly the same thing, therefore you
should not mix believe and theoretical physics.

Physics is as natural science not concerned with religious bias and can
simply ignore everything from whatever believe system.

That's why there exists no 'Aryan physics', but only true physics.

Whether you like it or not, whether you profit from it or if it
undermines you believes, that isn't the business of science.

Science can only deliver truth.

> So to begin with, Einstein et al were mocked and ridiculed just as I am
> today, by the establishment.

Well, your theories are a different story, because highly efficiant rail
guns are a politiical issue, which could eventually change the political
worldmap.

>
> The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to
> politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear
> of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great
> energies released are due to e=mcc.
>
>> It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed
>> very often:
>
> It is nonsense, period.
No.

There is a guy named Tom Bearden, who wrote about it.
>>
>> we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both
>> real.
>
> A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense.
> Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go
> on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place,
> causing interference.
> But that does not mean that time goes backwards.

I have based my own theory upon bi-quaternions (aka 'complex four-vectors').

They form a field and are internally connected, as if they are
multiplied together with the neighbor.

The imaginary axis builds the axis of time and the three real units the
axes of space.

Now this construct is anti-symmetric. that means, it takes two rotations
to return to the initial state.

After one rotation the axis of time points into the opposite direction
and everything is fliped over to a mirror image.

Now we could assume, that such a 'world behind the mirror' does in fact
exist, where time runs (in our view) backwards.

That world is made from anti-matter.

But seen from there our world is made from anti-matter and our time runs
backwards.

That is actually the main priciple of relativity: that relations depend
on the own point of view.

E.g. if I see you moving, you can see me moving and we cannot decide,
who is correct.

>>
>> Which time is forward, that is debatable, hence both are and the other
>> one is in relative motion 'backwards'.
>
> There is ONLY forward time, or NO time in situations where there is no
> change. However even in such situations outside the situation the
> estimate of time can be done, by those in situations where things do
> change.

Sure, but time is local!

This time belongs to the local 'time domaine', to which in turn we
belong and which we could not leave.

So: WE have only one single forward time.

But the anti-guys from that 'world behind the mirror' have a different
time, which runs also forwward locally, bach backwards in our view.

Since rotation of the axis of time can also occur gradually, we could as
well assume a world, where the axis of time points sideways to ours or
in an angle.

>> About QM I had to criticise a few points, too.
>>
>> That was mainly the particle concept itself.
>>
>> Particles are assumed to be lasting entities, created shortly after
>> the big bang.
>
> Another dogmatic assertion, the big bang. It is only a theory. How can
> a theory become accepted like fact? Most unscientific.

Well, yes, because it was George LeMaitre, who introduced this idea and
he was a jesuit priest.

>> But I found a counter-example: Growing Earth.
>
> Another nonsense. Earth is not growing.

I have spent about ten years with this topic and can assure you, that
Earth is in fact growing.

It is a complicated topic and not quite obvious.

A good starting point is this video by Neal Adams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ

....

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 06.04.2024 um 02:07 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
> > Le 05/04/2024 à 18:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> >> Am 04.04.2024 um 04:18 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
> >>> Le 03/04/2024 à 16:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> >>>> Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker:
> >>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
> >>>>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> >>>>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book'
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>> It is some 100 times better than the one used before. Much less power
> >>> consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided
> >>> missile at hypersonic speeds.
> >>>
> >>> As for my gun, check out
> >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
> >>> Follow the link to the 2-sec video.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges.
> >>>
> >>> Both are nonsense to me.
> >>> When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also
> >>> busted.
> >>> Aether is back, filling the infinite universe.
> >>>
> >>> I hope you realise that one day.
> >>
> >> I have actually written a longish critique of 'On the electrodynamics
> >> of moving bodies'
> >> (here:
> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view )
> >>
> >> and know what you mean.
> >>
> >> But I think, that relativity is not entirely wrong.
> >
> > It is entirely wrong from top to bottom.
>
> 'relativity' is actually an undisputable fact, because everything moves
> relative to something else.
>
> It's such a simple fact, that hardly anybody can reject it.
>
> There exist another view, which is based on Newton's absolute space,
> which would allow to defince velocity in respect to the universe.
>
> This view is actually the position of Einstein in SRT, even if it is
> self-contradicting.
>
> We can see this in the use of velocity v without definition of a
> reference point, in respect to which velocity is measured.
>
> This would require an absolute space, which Einstein declared to not exist.
>
> > It is not science, but Jewish dogma to get rid of the Arya notion of aum
> > (aether) pervading the universe.
>
> Religion and science are not exactly the same thing, therefore you
> should not mix believe and theoretical physics.
>
> Physics is as natural science not concerned with religious bias and can
> simply ignore everything from whatever believe system.
>
> That's why there exists no 'Aryan physics', but only true physics.
>
> Whether you like it or not, whether you profit from it or if it
> undermines you believes, that isn't the business of science.
>
> Science can only deliver truth.
>
> > So to begin with, Einstein et al were mocked and ridiculed just as I am
> > today, by the establishment.
>
> Well, your theories are a different story, because highly efficiant rail
> guns are a politiical issue, which could eventually change the political
> worldmap.
>
> >
> > The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to
> > politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear
> > of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great
> > energies released are due to e=mcc.
> >
> >> It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed
> >> very often:
> >
> > It is nonsense, period.
> No.
>
> There is a guy named Tom Bearden, who wrote about it.
> >>
> >> we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both
> >> real.
> >
> > A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense.
> > Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go
> > on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place,
> > causing interference.
> > But that does not mean that time goes backwards.
>
> I have based my own theory upon bi-quaternions (aka 'complex four-vectors').
>
> They form a field and are internally connected, as if they are
> multiplied together with the neighbor.
>
> The imaginary axis builds the axis of time and the three real units the
> axes of space.
>
> Now this construct is anti-symmetric. that means, it takes two rotations
> to return to the initial state.
>
> After one rotation the axis of time points into the opposite direction
> and everything is fliped over to a mirror image.
>
> Now we could assume, that such a 'world behind the mirror' does in fact
> exist, where time runs (in our view) backwards.
>
> That world is made from anti-matter.
>
> But seen from there our world is made from anti-matter and our time runs
> backwards.
>
> That is actually the main priciple of relativity: that relations depend
> on the own point of view.
>
> E.g. if I see you moving, you can see me moving and we cannot decide,
> who is correct.
>
> >>
> >> Which time is forward, that is debatable, hence both are and the other
> >> one is in relative motion 'backwards'.
> >
> > There is ONLY forward time, or NO time in situations where there is no
> > change. However even in such situations outside the situation the
> > estimate of time can be done, by those in situations where things do
> > change.
>
> Sure, but time is local!
>
> This time belongs to the local 'time domaine', to which in turn we
> belong and which we could not leave.
>
> So: WE have only one single forward time.
>
> But the anti-guys from that 'world behind the mirror' have a different
> time, which runs also forwward locally, bach backwards in our view.
>
> Since rotation of the axis of time can also occur gradually, we could as
> well assume a world, where the axis of time points sideways to ours or
> in an angle.
>
> >> About QM I had to criticise a few points, too.
> >>
> >> That was mainly the particle concept itself.
> >>
> >> Particles are assumed to be lasting entities, created shortly after
> >> the big bang.
> >
> > Another dogmatic assertion, the big bang. It is only a theory. How can
> > a theory become accepted like fact? Most unscientific.
>
> Well, yes, because it was George LeMaitre, who introduced this idea and
> he was a jesuit priest.
>
> >> But I found a counter-example: Growing Earth.
> >
> > Another nonsense. Earth is not growing.
>
> I have spent about ten years with this topic and can assure you, that
> Earth is in fact growing.
>
> It is a complicated topic and not quite obvious.
>
> A good starting point is this video by Neal Adams:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
>
> ...
>
> TH

Can you explain why 'Earth Science' category is not allowed for a Nobel
Prize?

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

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

<snip old crap>

> Can you explain why 'Earth Science' category is not allowed for a Nobel
> Prize?
Maybe because all facets of 'Earth Science' are covered by existing
categories, which should be obvious.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> > Am 06.04.2024 um 02:07 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
> > > Le 05/04/2024 à 18:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> > >> Am 04.04.2024 um 04:18 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
> > >>> Le 03/04/2024 à 16:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> > >>>> Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > >>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
> > >>>>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> > >>>>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book'
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> ...
> > >>
> > >>> It is some 100 times better than the one used before. Much less power
> > >>> consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided
> > >>> missile at hypersonic speeds.
> > >>>
> > >>> As for my gun, check out
> > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
> > >>> Follow the link to the 2-sec video.
> > >>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges.
> > >>>
> > >>> Both are nonsense to me.
> > >>> When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also
> > >>> busted.
> > >>> Aether is back, filling the infinite universe.
> > >>>
> > >>> I hope you realise that one day.
> > >>
> > >> I have actually written a longish critique of 'On the electrodynamics
> > >> of moving bodies'
> > >> (here:
> > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view )
> > >>
> > >> and know what you mean.
> > >>
> > >> But I think, that relativity is not entirely wrong.
> > >
> > > It is entirely wrong from top to bottom.
> >
> > 'relativity' is actually an undisputable fact, because everything moves
> > relative to something else.
> >
> > It's such a simple fact, that hardly anybody can reject it.
> >
> > There exist another view, which is based on Newton's absolute space,
> > which would allow to defince velocity in respect to the universe.
> >
> > This view is actually the position of Einstein in SRT, even if it is
> > self-contradicting.
> >
> > We can see this in the use of velocity v without definition of a
> > reference point, in respect to which velocity is measured.
> >
> > This would require an absolute space, which Einstein declared to not exist.
> >
> > > It is not science, but Jewish dogma to get rid of the Arya notion of aum
> > > (aether) pervading the universe.
> >
> > Religion and science are not exactly the same thing, therefore you
> > should not mix believe and theoretical physics.
> >
> > Physics is as natural science not concerned with religious bias and can
> > simply ignore everything from whatever believe system.
> >
> > That's why there exists no 'Aryan physics', but only true physics.
> >
> > Whether you like it or not, whether you profit from it or if it
> > undermines you believes, that isn't the business of science.
> >
> > Science can only deliver truth.
> >
> > > So to begin with, Einstein et al were mocked and ridiculed just as I am
> > > today, by the establishment.
> >
> > Well, your theories are a different story, because highly efficiant rail
> > guns are a politiical issue, which could eventually change the political
> > worldmap.
> >
> > >
> > > The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to
> > > politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear
> > > of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great
> > > energies released are due to e=mcc.
> > >
> > >> It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed
> > >> very often:
> > >
> > > It is nonsense, period.
> > No.
> >
> > There is a guy named Tom Bearden, who wrote about it.
> > >>
> > >> we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both
> > >> real.
> > >
> > > A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense.
> > > Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go
> > > on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place,
> > > causing interference.
> > > But that does not mean that time goes backwards.
> >
> > I have based my own theory upon bi-quaternions (aka 'complex four-vectors').
> >
> > They form a field and are internally connected, as if they are
> > multiplied together with the neighbor.
> >
> > The imaginary axis builds the axis of time and the three real units the
> > axes of space.
> >
> > Now this construct is anti-symmetric. that means, it takes two rotations
> > to return to the initial state.
> >
> > After one rotation the axis of time points into the opposite direction
> > and everything is fliped over to a mirror image.
> >
> > Now we could assume, that such a 'world behind the mirror' does in fact
> > exist, where time runs (in our view) backwards.
> >
> > That world is made from anti-matter.
> >
> > But seen from there our world is made from anti-matter and our time runs
> > backwards.
> >
> > That is actually the main priciple of relativity: that relations depend
> > on the own point of view.
> >
> > E.g. if I see you moving, you can see me moving and we cannot decide,
> > who is correct.
> >
> > >>
> > >> Which time is forward, that is debatable, hence both are and the other
> > >> one is in relative motion 'backwards'.
> > >
> > > There is ONLY forward time, or NO time in situations where there is no
> > > change. However even in such situations outside the situation the
> > > estimate of time can be done, by those in situations where things do
> > > change.
> >
> > Sure, but time is local!
> >
> > This time belongs to the local 'time domaine', to which in turn we
> > belong and which we could not leave.
> >
> > So: WE have only one single forward time.
> >
> > But the anti-guys from that 'world behind the mirror' have a different
> > time, which runs also forwward locally, bach backwards in our view.
> >
> > Since rotation of the axis of time can also occur gradually, we could as
> > well assume a world, where the axis of time points sideways to ours or
> > in an angle.
> >
> > >> About QM I had to criticise a few points, too.
> > >>
> > >> That was mainly the particle concept itself.
> > >>
> > >> Particles are assumed to be lasting entities, created shortly after
> > >> the big bang.
> > >
> > > Another dogmatic assertion, the big bang. It is only a theory. How can
> > > a theory become accepted like fact? Most unscientific.
> >
> > Well, yes, because it was George LeMaitre, who introduced this idea and
> > he was a jesuit priest.
> >
> > >> But I found a counter-example: Growing Earth.
> > >
> > > Another nonsense. Earth is not growing.
> >
> > I have spent about ten years with this topic and can assure you, that
> > Earth is in fact growing.
> >
> > It is a complicated topic and not quite obvious.
> >
> > A good starting point is this video by Neal Adams:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
> >
> > ...
> >
> > TH
>
> Can you explain why 'Earth Science' category is not allowed for a Nobel
> Prize?

Jim Pennino wrote:
>
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> <snip old crap>
>
> > Can you explain why 'Earth Science' category is not allowed for a Nobel
> > Prize?
>
> Maybe because all facets of 'Earth Science' are covered by existing
> categories, which should be obvious.

You people have to excuse 'Jim Pennino'...he doesn't know what 'Earth Science' means.

'Earth Science' includes everything Earth, like it's environment, humans and their connection to earth, evolution, earth climate science, etc are covered.

--
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:
> >
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >
> > > Am 06.04.2024 um 02:07 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
> > > > Le 05/04/2024 à 18:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> > > >> Am 04.04.2024 um 04:18 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
> > > >>> Le 03/04/2024 à 16:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> > > >>>> Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > > >>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
> > > >>>>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> > > >>>>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book'
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> ...
> > > >>
> > > >>> It is some 100 times better than the one used before. Much less power
> > > >>> consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided
> > > >>> missile at hypersonic speeds.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As for my gun, check out
> > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
> > > >>> Follow the link to the 2-sec video.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Both are nonsense to me.
> > > >>> When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also
> > > >>> busted.
> > > >>> Aether is back, filling the infinite universe.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I hope you realise that one day.
> > > >>
> > > >> I have actually written a longish critique of 'On the electrodynamics
> > > >> of moving bodies'
> > > >> (here:
> > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view )
> > > >>
> > > >> and know what you mean.
> > > >>
> > > >> But I think, that relativity is not entirely wrong.
> > > >
> > > > It is entirely wrong from top to bottom.
> > >
> > > 'relativity' is actually an undisputable fact, because everything moves
> > > relative to something else.
> > >
> > > It's such a simple fact, that hardly anybody can reject it.
> > >
> > > There exist another view, which is based on Newton's absolute space,
> > > which would allow to defince velocity in respect to the universe.
> > >
> > > This view is actually the position of Einstein in SRT, even if it is
> > > self-contradicting.
> > >
> > > We can see this in the use of velocity v without definition of a
> > > reference point, in respect to which velocity is measured.
> > >
> > > This would require an absolute space, which Einstein declared to not exist.
> > >
> > > > It is not science, but Jewish dogma to get rid of the Arya notion of aum
> > > > (aether) pervading the universe.
> > >
> > > Religion and science are not exactly the same thing, therefore you
> > > should not mix believe and theoretical physics.
> > >
> > > Physics is as natural science not concerned with religious bias and can
> > > simply ignore everything from whatever believe system.
> > >
> > > That's why there exists no 'Aryan physics', but only true physics.
> > >
> > > Whether you like it or not, whether you profit from it or if it
> > > undermines you believes, that isn't the business of science.
> > >
> > > Science can only deliver truth.
> > >
> > > > So to begin with, Einstein et al were mocked and ridiculed just as I am
> > > > today, by the establishment.
> > >
> > > Well, your theories are a different story, because highly efficiant rail
> > > guns are a politiical issue, which could eventually change the political
> > > worldmap.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to
> > > > politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear
> > > > of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great
> > > > energies released are due to e=mcc.
> > > >
> > > >> It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed
> > > >> very often:
> > > >
> > > > It is nonsense, period.
> > > No.
> > >
> > > There is a guy named Tom Bearden, who wrote about it.
> > > >>
> > > >> we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both
> > > >> real.
> > > >
> > > > A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense.
> > > > Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go
> > > > on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place,
> > > > causing interference.
> > > > But that does not mean that time goes backwards.
> > >
> > > I have based my own theory upon bi-quaternions (aka 'complex four-vectors').
> > >
> > > They form a field and are internally connected, as if they are
> > > multiplied together with the neighbor.
> > >
> > > The imaginary axis builds the axis of time and the three real units the
> > > axes of space.
> > >
> > > Now this construct is anti-symmetric. that means, it takes two rotations
> > > to return to the initial state.
> > >
> > > After one rotation the axis of time points into the opposite direction
> > > and everything is fliped over to a mirror image.
> > >
> > > Now we could assume, that such a 'world behind the mirror' does in fact
> > > exist, where time runs (in our view) backwards.
> > >
> > > That world is made from anti-matter.
> > >
> > > But seen from there our world is made from anti-matter and our time runs
> > > backwards.
> > >
> > > That is actually the main priciple of relativity: that relations depend
> > > on the own point of view.
> > >
> > > E.g. if I see you moving, you can see me moving and we cannot decide,
> > > who is correct.
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Which time is forward, that is debatable, hence both are and the other
> > > >> one is in relative motion 'backwards'.
> > > >
> > > > There is ONLY forward time, or NO time in situations where there is no
> > > > change. However even in such situations outside the situation the
> > > > estimate of time can be done, by those in situations where things do
> > > > change.
> > >
> > > Sure, but time is local!
> > >
> > > This time belongs to the local 'time domaine', to which in turn we
> > > belong and which we could not leave.
> > >
> > > So: WE have only one single forward time.
> > >
> > > But the anti-guys from that 'world behind the mirror' have a different
> > > time, which runs also forwward locally, bach backwards in our view.
> > >
> > > Since rotation of the axis of time can also occur gradually, we could as
> > > well assume a world, where the axis of time points sideways to ours or
> > > in an angle.
> > >
> > > >> About QM I had to criticise a few points, too.
> > > >>
> > > >> That was mainly the particle concept itself.
> > > >>
> > > >> Particles are assumed to be lasting entities, created shortly after
> > > >> the big bang.
> > > >
> > > > Another dogmatic assertion, the big bang. It is only a theory. How can
> > > > a theory become accepted like fact? Most unscientific.
> > >
> > > Well, yes, because it was George LeMaitre, who introduced this idea and
> > > he was a jesuit priest.
> > >
> > > >> But I found a counter-example: Growing Earth.
> > > >
> > > > Another nonsense. Earth is not growing.
> > >
> > > I have spent about ten years with this topic and can assure you, that
> > > Earth is in fact growing.
> > >
> > > It is a complicated topic and not quite obvious.
> > >
> > > A good starting point is this video by Neal Adams:
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > TH
> >
> > Can you explain why 'Earth Science' category is not allowed for a Nobel
> > Prize?
>
> I forgot to include Math category is not allowed for a Nobel Prize.

Le 06/04/2024 à 16:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am 06.04.2024 um 02:07 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
>> Le 05/04/2024 à 18:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>> Am 04.04.2024 um 04:18 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
>>>> Le 03/04/2024 à 16:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>>> Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
>>>>>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book'
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> It is some 100 times better than the one used before. Much less power
>>>> consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided
>>>> missile at hypersonic speeds.
>>>>
>>>> As for my gun, check out
>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
>>>> Follow the link to the 2-sec video.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges.
>>>>
>>>> Both are nonsense to me.
>>>> When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also
>>>> busted.
>>>> Aether is back, filling the infinite universe.
>>>>
>>>> I hope you realise that one day.
>>>
>>> I have actually written a longish critique of 'On the electrodynamics
>>> of moving bodies'
>>> (here:
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view )
>>>
>>> and know what you mean.
>>>
>>> But I think, that relativity is not entirely wrong.
>>
>> It is entirely wrong from top to bottom.
>
> 'relativity' is actually an undisputable fact, because everything moves
> relative to something else.
>
> It's such a simple fact, that hardly anybody can reject it.
>
> There exist another view, which is based on Newton's absolute space,
> which would allow to defince velocity in respect to the universe.
>
> This view is actually the position of Einstein in SRT, even if it is
> self-contradicting.
>
> We can see this in the use of velocity v without definition of a
> reference point, in respect to which velocity is measured.
>
> This would require an absolute space, which Einstein declared to not exist.
>
>
>> It is not science, but Jewish dogma to get rid of the Arya notion of aum
>> (aether) pervading the universe.
>
> Religion and science are not exactly the same thing, therefore you
> should not mix believe and theoretical physics.
>
> Physics is as natural science not concerned with religious bias and can
> simply ignore everything from whatever believe system.
>
> That's why there exists no 'Aryan physics', but only true physics.
>
> Whether you like it or not, whether you profit from it or if it
> undermines you believes, that isn't the business of science.
>
> Science can only deliver truth.
>
>> So to begin with, Einstein et al were mocked and ridiculed just as I am
>> today, by the establishment.
>
> Well, your theories are a different story, because highly efficiant rail
> guns are a politiical issue, which could eventually change the political
> worldmap.
>
>>
>> The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to
>> politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear
>> of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great
>> energies released are due to e=mcc.
>>
>>> It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed
>>> very often:
>>
>> It is nonsense, period.
> No.
>
> There is a guy named Tom Bearden, who wrote about it.
>>>
>>> we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both
>>> real.
>>
>> A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense.
>> Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go
>> on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place,
>> causing interference.
>> But that does not mean that time goes backwards.
>
> I have based my own theory upon bi-quaternions (aka 'complex four-vectors').

Theory is fine, so long as fact is also involved, in the scientific
method.
>
> They form a field and are internally connected, as if they are
> multiplied together with the neighbor.

Where is that field? Any measurements possible?
>
> The imaginary axis builds the axis of time and the three real units the
> axes of space.

Makes no sense.
>
> Now this construct is anti-symmetric. that means, it takes two rotations
> to return to the initial state.

Makes no sense.
>
> After one rotation the axis of time points into the opposite direction
> and everything is fliped over to a mirror image.

The axis "of time?" was said to be imaginary, now how can it suddenly
become real?
Rest makes no sense.
>
> Now we could assume, that such a 'world behind the mirror' does in fact
> exist, where time runs (in our view) backwards.

Far too imaginary. Makes no sense in the scientific sense.
>
> That world is made from anti-matter.

From an assumption made earlier, we now come to presumption.
Makes no scientific sense.
>
> But seen from there our world is made from anti-matter and our time runs
> backwards.

Amazing how imaginations and assumptions suddenly become realities.
>
> That is actually the main priciple of relativity: that relations depend
> on the own point of view.

That I agree, but that has nothing to do with the speed of light being
independent of the speed of the emitter.
>
> E.g. if I see you moving, you can see me moving and we cannot decide,
> who is correct.

Some still robot on an inertial frame can decide who is moving where and
how.
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Which time is forward, that is debatable, hence both are and the other
>>> one is in relative motion 'backwards'.
>>
>> There is ONLY forward time, or NO time in situations where there is no
>> change. However even in such situations outside the situation the
>> estimate of time can be done, by those in situations where things do
>> change.
>
> Sure, but time is local!

Time is absolute. It may seem to stop at places where no events happen. To
an external it will be remaining that way for ever so long.
>
> This time belongs to the local 'time domaine', to which in turn we
> belong and which we could not leave.

Oh we leave all right when we die.
>
> So: WE have only one single forward time.

Yes.
>
> But the anti-guys from that 'world behind the mirror' have a different
> time, which runs also forwward locally, bach backwards in our view.

That is imaginary. Does not happen.
>
> Since rotation of the axis of time can also occur gradually, we could as
> well assume a world, where the axis of time points sideways to ours or
> in an angle.

Time axis is linear, does not rotate. The basic is the distant stars. The
time to get the repeated fix is one year and some time plus, and that
makes our calendar. Perfectly linear, and absolute.
>
>
>
>>> About QM I had to criticise a few points, too.
>>>
>>> That was mainly the particle concept itself.
>>>
>>> Particles are assumed to be lasting entities, created shortly after
>>> the big bang.
>>
>> Another dogmatic assertion, the big bang. It is only a theory. How can
>> a theory become accepted like fact? Most unscientific.
>
>
> Well, yes, because it was George LeMaitre, who introduced this idea and
> he was a jesuit priest.

Am 07.04.2024 um 03:25 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:

>>>
>>> The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to
>>> politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear
>>> of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great
>>> energies released are due to e=mcc.
>>>
>>>> It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed
>>>> very often:
>>>
>>> It is nonsense, period.
>> No.
>>
>> There is a guy named Tom Bearden, who wrote about it.
>>>>
>>>> we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both
>>>> real.
>>>
>>> A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense.
>>> Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go
>>> on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place,
>>> causing interference.
>>> But that does not mean that time goes backwards.
>>
>> I have based my own theory upon bi-quaternions (aka 'complex
>> four-vectors').
>
> Theory is fine, so long as fact is also involved, in the scientific method.
>>
>> They form a field and are internally connected, as if they are
>> multiplied together with the neighbor.
>
> Where is that field? Any measurements possible?

The idea was, that nature should be made from simple things on a
fundamental level.

But the standard model of QM is far too complicated.

It is also not 'relativistic' enough.

So I assumed a relatively simple mechanism and tried to connect this to
known facts in physics.

The idea is named 'structured spacetime', where spacetime is a real
physical entity and matter and everything else internal structures.

Spacetime is built for something similar to points in space, but with
features and more dimensions.

I had identified biquaternions as mathematical analogon and something
call 'Pauli algebra'.

This is actually already the entire idea.

Now I had tried to show, that all known phenomena in physics would fit
to such a scheme.

but I had to sacifice a few things. This was especially the case for
particles and a single, uniform, universal time.

>>
>> The imaginary axis builds the axis of time and the three real units
>> the axes of space.
>
> Makes no sense.

The idea behind it is this:

look at a spacetime diagramm with two axes. One is called 'spacelike'
and one 'timelike'.

Now compare this with an Argand-diagramm.

You will find, that it would make sense to assume, that spacetime is
actually complex valued.

Now so called 'complex four-vectors' remained in my 'dragnet' and were
the basis of my 'theory' (actually I do not call it 'theory' but 'concept').

>>
>> Now this construct is anti-symmetric. that means, it takes two
>> rotations to return to the initial state.
>
> Makes no sense.

Sure it makes sense.

But it's an advanced topic, so possibly you have never heard of that before.

>>
>> After one rotation the axis of time points into the opposite direction
>> and everything is fliped over to a mirror image.
>
> The axis "of time?" was said to be imaginary, now how can it suddenly
> become real?
> Rest makes no sense.

I promote a certain book by a 'Alexander Franklin Meyer' called
'Geometry of time' about this issue.

>>
>> Now we could assume, that such a 'world behind the mirror' does in
>> fact exist, where time runs (in our view) backwards.
>
> Far too imaginary. Makes no sense in the scientific sense.

It is not imaginary, but speculative.

Sure it is VERY speculative. But why not?

>> That world is made from anti-matter.
>
> From an assumption made earlier, we now come to presumption.
> Makes no scientific sense.
>>
>> But seen from there our world is made from anti-matter and our time
>> runs backwards.
>
> Amazing how imaginations and assumptions suddenly become realities.

Speculations, please!

....

TH

Le 08/04/2024 à 04:58, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am 07.04.2024 um 03:25 schrieb Arindam Banerjee:
>
>
>>>>
>>>> The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to
>>>> politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear
>>>> of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great
>>>> energies released are due to e=mcc.
>>>>
>>>>> It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed
>>>>> very often:
>>>>
>>>> It is nonsense, period.
>>> No.
Let us agree to disagree.
That goes for all the rest of your arguments, below, afaiac.
- snip -
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

Am 04.04.2024 um 07:58 schrieb The Starmaker:
....
>>
> While Albert Einstein was busy designing new bombs for the military, he
> started
> working on his 'Grand Unified theory' and told the military, a ship can
> be made to disapear and
> reappear somewhere else. But of course he needs money to finish his
> grand unified theiroy.
>
> He always figured out how to 'attach' his theories to the military war
> department.
>
> Didn't Albert Einstein design airplanes for the Germans in Germany?
>

As far as I know he didn't.

But he worked together with Leo Szillard in Berlin and Leo Szillard is
assumed to be the 'father' of the atomic bomb.

So, I assume, that Albert Einstein was at least an uncle.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 04.04.2024 um 07:58 schrieb The Starmaker:
> ...
> >>
> > While Albert Einstein was busy designing new bombs for the military, he
> > started
> > working on his 'Grand Unified theory' and told the military, a ship can
> > be made to disapear and
> > reappear somewhere else. But of course he needs money to finish his
> > grand unified theiroy.
> >
> > He always figured out how to 'attach' his theories to the military war
> > department.
> >
> > Didn't Albert Einstein design airplanes for the Germans in Germany?
> >
>
> As far as I know he didn't.

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-doc/430

>
> But he worked together with Leo Szillard in Berlin and Leo Szillard is
> assumed to be the 'father' of the atomic bomb.
>
> So, I assume, that Albert Einstein was at least an uncle.
>
> TH

"He is the father" of the atom bomb, says Beser, who is the grandson of the only U.S. serviceman aboard both planes that carried the atomic bombs to Japan.

https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1680282648881819648/photo/1

https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1758508135550222422/photo/1

https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1491839255168966666

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

Am Freitag000005, 05.04.2024 um 09:50 schrieb The Starmaker:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am 01.03.2024 um 07:25 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
>>>>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
>>>>
>>>>> That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
>>>>> the second.
>>>>
>>>>> Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
>>>>> certain atoms.
>>>>
>>>>> But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the
>>>>> underlying frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
>>>>
>>>>> But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
>>>>> these frequencies are universally constant or not.
>>>>
>>>>> This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
>>>>> process, which frequency we like to measure.
>>>>
>>>> This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
>>>> debated on these forums: What is a clock?
>>>
>>> https://www.bing.com/search?q=clock+picture&form=ANNTH1&refig=7f26d3e3f0dd44458d7e38ba627e82c5&pc=U531
>>>
>>> These are, poor halfbrain.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> All of these do not show time!
>>
>> Dates belong to time values, too, because time is not only counting the
>> hours, minutes and seconds within a single day.
>>
>> TH
>
>
> does time flow? how do you 'detect' the flow??
>
> oh, oh, i'm running out of time! does time run?
>
> if arrow of time, where is the bow?

The human perception of time isn't time neither.

You must not take your own impresions as something real!

Everything you think as reality is actually an internal representation
of the outer world, which is generated by your brain.

Therefore: what you think is not real, but an internal image about the
real world.

But natural sciences like physics are not about our usual daydreams, but
about the real world, hence you should refrain from talking about
feelings or emotions in connection with physics.

Feelings are a subject of science, too, but not of physics.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am Freitag000005, 05.04.2024 um 09:50 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 01.03.2024 um 07:25 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>> The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
> >>>>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
> >>>>
> >>>>> That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
> >>>>> the second.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
> >>>>> certain atoms.
> >>>>
> >>>>> But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the
> >>>>> underlying frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
> >>>>
> >>>>> But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
> >>>>> these frequencies are universally constant or not.
> >>>>
> >>>>> This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
> >>>>> process, which frequency we like to measure.
> >>>>
> >>>> This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
> >>>> debated on these forums: What is a clock?
> >>>
> >>> https://www.bing.com/search?q=clock+picture&form=ANNTH1&refig=7f26d3e3f0dd44458d7e38ba627e82c5&pc=U531
> >>>
> >>> These are, poor halfbrain.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> All of these do not show time!
> >>
> >> Dates belong to time values, too, because time is not only counting the
> >> hours, minutes and seconds within a single day.
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> >
> > does time flow? how do you 'detect' the flow??
> >
> > oh, oh, i'm running out of time! does time run?
> >
> > if arrow of time, where is the bow?
>
> The human perception of time isn't time neither.
>
> You must not take your own impresions as something real!
>
> Everything you think as reality is actually an internal representation
> of the outer world, which is generated by your brain.
>
> Therefore: what you think is not real, but an internal image about the
> real world.
>
> But natural sciences like physics are not about our usual daydreams, but
> about the real world, hence you should refrain from talking about
> feelings or emotions in connection with physics.
>
> Feelings are a subject of science, too, but not of physics.
>
> TH

sci.physics????

sci.
..physics??

What does sci.physics mean???? a subject of science but not of physics???

i'm soooo confused...

sometimes like a wave, sometimes like a particle

science but not physics. no

sometimes science, sometimes physics.

i'm soooo confused...

small particles, big particles

sci physics?

do i got dat right?

arrow of time
dis way and dat way.
sci physics

do i got dat right?

i'm soooo confused...

sci.math

is just... a feeling
that numbers exist.

do i got dat right?

dark matter and dark energy?
is it sci or physics?

i'm soooo confused...

i don't seem to know...anything!

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

Am Dienstag000016, 16.04.2024 um 18:19 schrieb The Starmaker:

>
>
> i'm soooo confused...
>
>
>
> sci.math
>
> is just... a feeling
> that numbers exist.
>
>
> do i got dat right?
>
>
>
> dark matter and dark energy?
> is it sci or physics?
>
>
> i'm soooo confused...
>

Well, medicine or psychology are sciences, too.

Possibly you ask one of these branches for help.

TH
>