Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #585932 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-05-26 21:17 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-06-02 20:58 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 255 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-26 21:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-26 21:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-26 22:23 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-26 23:41 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 00:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-27 13:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 12:36 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-27 14:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-27 07:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-27 09:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-05-27 19:09 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:26 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 13:26 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-05-28 14:13 +0000
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-27 12:14 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-27 12:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 13:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 07:48 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-27 17:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-27 21:36 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 22:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 09:22 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 09:25 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 07:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 07:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 08:36 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 09:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 09:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-07 19:19 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 22:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-08 11:36 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-08 20:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-09 13:30 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 21:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 10:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 11:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 12:34 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 13:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 18:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-29 12:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 13:09 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-29 16:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 09:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-30 09:25 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 09:51 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 11:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 13:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 14:05 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-30 14:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 15:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-30 16:58 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 20:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 00:51 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 10:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 10:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 07:21 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 10:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-31 10:54 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 11:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 13:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 12:52 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 13:13 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 14:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-31 14:31 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 12:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-28 23:45 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 11:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 12:51 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 13:05 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 13:22 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 19:45 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 20:23 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 21:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 09:38 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 10:35 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 11:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 12:52 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 15:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 15:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 11:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 13:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 13:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 14:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 10:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 12:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 14:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 09:15 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 10:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 13:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 13:58 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 00:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 17:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 20:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 21:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 21:43 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 02:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-05-31 12:06 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 13:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 13:43 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-05-31 23:10 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 12:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-02 15:35 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 15:55 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-02 21:03 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-06-02 19:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 06:04 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 07:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-03 10:05 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-03 10:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 19:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-03 10:43 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 08:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 22:43 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 07:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 08:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 09:06 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 11:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 12:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 14:37 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 07:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 07:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 08:54 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 09:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 09:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 10:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 11:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 12:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 14:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 15:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 17:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 09:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-04 12:25 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 13:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 14:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-03 12:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 13:06 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-01 14:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-02 07:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-02 14:55 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 21:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 07:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 08:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-03 10:38 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-03 10:51 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 09:59 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-03 11:59 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 12:55 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-04 12:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-03 13:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 13:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-03 14:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 23:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 07:26 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 08:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 10:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-04 11:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 12:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 12:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-04 14:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 14:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 14:37 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 07:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 08:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 09:04 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 09:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-06-05 19:52 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 11:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-06-05 20:47 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-08 13:21 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 21:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-09 10:57 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 12:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-09 14:36 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 05:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-09 10:38 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-09 22:36 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-04 15:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-06-04 19:25 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 17:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-06-04 21:00 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 21:13 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 07:41 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-05 13:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 12:48 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-05 15:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 20:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-05 23:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 13:55 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 16:53 -0700
Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-04 14:01 -0500
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 12:58 -0700
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> - 2022-07-13 16:57 +0100
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-07-14 08:20 -0500
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-07-14 21:19 -0500
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-16 15:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-04 18:36 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 22:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 22:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-05 09:47 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 08:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 09:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-05 21:41 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 13:15 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-03 12:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 13:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-31 21:35 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:58 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 08:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 09:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 12:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 12:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 13:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 23:05 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 23:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 11:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-05-28 17:53 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-28 23:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 12:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 11:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 11:52 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-05-28 17:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 18:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 20:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 20:31 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 07:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 08:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:23 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:57 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:35 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-05-27 21:49 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 17:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-27 12:38 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 11:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 11:37 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 07:51 -0700
Absolute time Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-01 15:43 +0000
Re: Absolute time Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 07:56 -0700
Re: Absolute time whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-06-02 12:05 -0500
Re: Absolute time Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 20:58 -0700
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 12:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <6293CDB3.19D4@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586068 |
Richard Hertz wrote: > I consider myself a VERY HONEST PERSON!. Someone once said...'...honesty is taken as an index of stupidity.' So, in certain circles...you cannot be trusted. You cannot be a cop, because who can trust a cop who doesn't take money? You cannot be a politician. You cannot be a woman.. You cannot... the list is too long! There are three doors.. one door has a million dollars behind the door... two doors have no lock on it only one door has a lock. Which door would you open? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 13:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <6293D421.3F42@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586090 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > I consider myself a VERY HONEST PERSON!. > > Someone once said...'...honesty is taken as an index of stupidity.' > > So, in certain circles...you cannot be trusted. > > You cannot be a cop, > because who can trust a cop who doesn't take money? > > You cannot be a politician. > > You cannot be a woman.. > > You cannot... > > the list is too long! > > There are three doors.. > one door has a million dollars > behind the door... > > two doors have no lock on it > only one door has a lock. > > Which door would you open? Of course, the door with the lock on it has the million dollars behind the door... Still, which door would you open? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 23:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <62945EA0.CDD@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586095 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > I consider myself a VERY HONEST PERSON!. > > > > Someone once said...'...honesty is taken as an index of stupidity.' > > > > So, in certain circles...you cannot be trusted. > > > > You cannot be a cop, > > because who can trust a cop who doesn't take money? > > > > You cannot be a politician. > > > > You cannot be a woman.. > > > > You cannot... > > > > the list is too long! > > > > There are three doors.. > > one door has a million dollars > > behind the door... > > > > two doors have no lock on it > > only one door has a lock. > > > > Which door would you open? > > Of course, the door with the lock on it has the million dollars behind > the door... > > Still, which door would you open? Of course, Richard Heartz is afraid to answer such a simple question because he is becoming just like the Odd Bodkin, don't answer questions that he don't know the answers to. You won't find the simple question on the internet anywhere else because I just made it up. So, you cannot find the probelm on the internet and you don't know which answer to give so what do they do? They stay silent. They don't want to embarass themslves in front of everyone. They rather commit suicide. They like to to find the answer on the internet so they can twist it around and post the other side of the coin. Have you notice something about Richard Hertz and Paparios? They seem to be both...engineers. And engineers have a tendency to be...'Detail Oriented'. The devil is in the details. "...the rest are details." All of Richard's Hertz post look like....blueprints. 'Detail Oriented' -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 23:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <a7245e58-7c97-4ed8-bca9-87acb0f0f71an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586119 |
On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 3:05:11 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > I consider myself a VERY HONEST PERSON!. > > > > > > Someone once said...'...honesty is taken as an index of stupidity.' > > > > > > So, in certain circles...you cannot be trusted. > > > > > > You cannot be a cop, > > > because who can trust a cop who doesn't take money? > > > > > > You cannot be a politician. > > > > > > You cannot be a woman.. > > > > > > You cannot... > > > > > > the list is too long! > > > > > > There are three doors.. > > > one door has a million dollars > > > behind the door... > > > > > > two doors have no lock on it > > > only one door has a lock. > > > > > > Which door would you open? > > > > Of course, the door with the lock on it has the million dollars behind > > the door... > > > > Still, which door would you open? > Of course, Richard Heartz is afraid to answer such a simple question > because he is becoming just > like the Odd Bodkin, don't answer questions that he don't know the > answers to. > > You won't find the simple question on the internet anywhere else because > I just made it up. > > So, you cannot find the probelm on the internet and you don't know which > answer to give so what do they do? They stay silent. > They don't want to embarass themslves in front of everyone. They rather > commit suicide. > > They like to to find the answer on the internet so they can > twist it around and post the other side of the coin. > > > Have you notice something about Richard Hertz and Paparios? They seem to > be both...engineers. > > And engineers have a tendency to be...'Detail Oriented'. > > > The devil is in the details. > > "...the rest are details." > > All of Richard's Hertz post look like....blueprints. > > > > 'Detail Oriented' > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > and challenge > the unchallengeable. Let me see: Imagination powered, intelligence leveled, challenge driven, goals delimited, detail oriented, ..... It sounds like a winning combination for me. Worked every time. And what is with your internal engines, Starmaker?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-30 11:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <62950BDD.E02@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586121 |
Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 3:05:11 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > > I consider myself a VERY HONEST PERSON!. > > > > > > > > Someone once said...'...honesty is taken as an index of stupidity.' > > > > > > > > So, in certain circles...you cannot be trusted. > > > > > > > > You cannot be a cop, > > > > because who can trust a cop who doesn't take money? > > > > > > > > You cannot be a politician. > > > > > > > > You cannot be a woman.. > > > > > > > > You cannot... > > > > > > > > the list is too long! > > > > > > > > There are three doors.. > > > > one door has a million dollars > > > > behind the door... > > > > > > > > two doors have no lock on it > > > > only one door has a lock. > > > > > > > > Which door would you open? > > > > > > Of course, the door with the lock on it has the million dollars behind > > > the door... > > > > > > Still, which door would you open? > > Of course, Richard Heartz is afraid to answer such a simple question > > because he is becoming just > > like the Odd Bodkin, don't answer questions that he don't know the > > answers to. > > > > You won't find the simple question on the internet anywhere else because > > I just made it up. > > > > So, you cannot find the probelm on the internet and you don't know which > > answer to give so what do they do? They stay silent. > > They don't want to embarass themslves in front of everyone. They rather > > commit suicide. > > > > They like to to find the answer on the internet so they can > > twist it around and post the other side of the coin. > > > > > > Have you notice something about Richard Hertz and Paparios? They seem to > > be both...engineers. > > > > And engineers have a tendency to be...'Detail Oriented'. > > > > > > The devil is in the details. > > > > "...the rest are details." > > > > All of Richard's Hertz post look like....blueprints. > > > > > > > > 'Detail Oriented' > > -- > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > > and challenge > > the unchallengeable. > > Let me see: > > Imagination powered, intelligence leveled, challenge driven, goals delimited, detail oriented, ..... I forgot to add you put yourself on top of the totem pole.. "detail oriented" means you get distracted by...details. You're tooooo close to the trees. You have blueprints of trees! > > It sounds like a winning combination for me. Worked every time. > > And what is with your internal engines, Starmaker? "internal engines"???? Do you mean I'm just a colletion of atoms posting here? Or I'm just a liquid scum on the surface of the earth?? What about Your internal engines? Do you have a Big nose? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 17:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <PvGdnZqisp1NOg__nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #586013 |
On 5/28/22 12:35 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > According to Einstein's Second Postulate, the speed of light is > relative to stationary points in EMPTY SPACE. You REALLY should read what Einstein wrote. He said no such thing -- that is purely YOUR fabrication. In your near-complete ignorance of modern physics, when you just make stuff up like that, it is invariably wrong. How sad. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 09:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <1d9baa3b-ccef-41a3-ad3a-73810bded269n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586038 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 5:53:11 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 5/28/22 12:35 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > According to Einstein's Second Postulate, the speed of light is > > relative to stationary points in EMPTY SPACE. > You REALLY should read what Einstein wrote. He said no such thing -- > that is purely YOUR fabrication. > > In your near-complete ignorance of modern physics, when you just make > stuff up like that, it is invariably wrong. How sad. > > Tom Roberts Einstein wrote this: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." So, it doesn't make any difference how fast the emitting body is moving, light will always travel at 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. You are correct, however. I didn't mean to write that "the SPEED of light is relative to stationary points in empty space." It can be measured that way, but it is more correct to say that when light is EMITTED, it is EMITTED from a stationary point in space. HOWEVER, its speed will depend upon the speed of the emitter relative to that stationary point in space. The faster the emitter is traveling, the longer a second will be for the emitter, and light will travel at 299,792,458 meters PER THAT LONGER SECOND. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 23:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <62931872.111E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #585998 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:30:42 UTC-4, escribió: > > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, escribió: > > > > > > > > > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf > > > > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks. > > > > > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate. > > > > > > > > > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found > > > > > a stationary point in empty space. > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature. > > > > We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads. > > > > In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations. > > > > Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation. > > > > All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc. > > > > > We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same > > > frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with > > > virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important. > > > > > > > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock > > > is moving fast. And we know WHY. > > > > > Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower. > > You definitely have problems with English. You are saying the same > thing I just said. > > > > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved. > > That is also nonsense. Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy). > > And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship > between mass and energy. According to The Code: 'In the beggining, God created the heavens and the earth.' ...which means there is a direct relationship heavens (energy) and the earth (mass). The operative words are "and the", meaning jointly, together with, including, part of each other....(if you know English) -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 12:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <6293C31D.5E5E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586058 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:30:42 UTC-4, escribió: > > > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf > > > > > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks. > > > > > > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate. > > > > > > > > > > > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found > > > > > > a stationary point in empty space. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature. > > > > > We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads. > > > > > In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations. > > > > > Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation. > > > > > All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc. > > > > > > > We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same > > > > frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with > > > > virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important. > > > > > > > > > > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock > > > > is moving fast. And we know WHY. > > > > > > > Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower. > > > > You definitely have problems with English. You are saying the same > > thing I just said. > > > > > > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved. > > > That is also nonsense. Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy). > > > > And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship > > between mass and energy. > > According to The Code: 'In the beggining, God created the heavens and the earth.' > > ...which means there is a direct relationship heavens (energy) and the earth (mass). > > The operative words are "and the", meaning jointly, together with, including, part of each other....(if you know English) To put it simply, the universe (and everything in it was created at the same time as our Earth. Both are in the Now. Now then, Now now. Another thing... if you ask Google what is the age of the earth today, you get the number 4.543 billion years. But that number was derived in..1953. 1953???? You mean to tell me no progress has been made in Science since 1953???? Maybe it is now allowed for you to think pass 4.543 billion years. You need permission. From who??? CRANKS? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-30 11:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <629510A2.5EFE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586082 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:30:42 UTC-4, escribió: > > > > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf > > > > > > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks. > > > > > > > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found > > > > > > > a stationary point in empty space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature. > > > > > > We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads. > > > > > > In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations. > > > > > > Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation. > > > > > > All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc. > > > > > > > > > We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same > > > > > frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with > > > > > virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important. > > > > > > > > > > > > > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock > > > > > is moving fast. And we know WHY. > > > > > > > > > Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower. > > > > > > You definitely have problems with English. You are saying the same > > > thing I just said. > > > > > > > > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved. > > > > That is also nonsense. Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy). > > > > > > And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship > > > between mass and energy. > > > > According to The Code: 'In the beggining, God created the heavens and the earth.' > > > > ...which means there is a direct relationship heavens (energy) and the earth (mass). > > > > The operative words are "and the", meaning jointly, together with, including, part of each other....(if you know English) > > To put it simply, the universe (and everything in it was created at the same time as our Earth. Both are in the Now. > > Now then, Now now. > > Another thing... > if you ask Google what is the age of the earth today, you get the number 4.543 billion years. > > But that number was derived in..1953. > > 1953???? You mean to tell me no progress has been made in Science since 1953???? > > Maybe it is now allowed for you to think pass 4.543 billion years. > > You need permission. From who??? CRANKS? > Furthermore, At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about 75,000 years old. Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the age of the earth to be 306,662,400 years old. The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay. So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how come nobody out there sez he lied???? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-30 11:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <a1b65f66-a5b8-4ada-a265-bc6ed52c319en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586138 |
On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 3:44:53 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:30:42 UTC-4, escribió: > > > > > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf > > > > > > > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks. > > > > > > > > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found > > > > > > > > a stationary point in empty space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature. > > > > > > > We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads. > > > > > > > In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations. > > > > > > > Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation. > > > > > > > All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same > > > > > > frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with > > > > > > virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock > > > > > > is moving fast. And we know WHY. > > > > > > > > > > > Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower. > > > > > > > > You definitely have problems with English. You are saying the same > > > > thing I just said. > > > > > > > > > > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved. > > > > > That is also nonsense. Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy). > > > > > > > > And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship > > > > between mass and energy. > > > > > > According to The Code: 'In the beggining, God created the heavens and the earth.' > > > > > > ...which means there is a direct relationship heavens (energy) and the earth (mass). > > > > > > The operative words are "and the", meaning jointly, together with, including, part of each other....(if you know English) > > > > To put it simply, the universe (and everything in it was created at the same time as our Earth. Both are in the Now. > > > > Now then, Now now. > > > > Another thing... > > if you ask Google what is the age of the earth today, you get the number 4.543 billion years. > > > > But that number was derived in..1953. > > > > 1953???? You mean to tell me no progress has been made in Science since 1953???? > > > > Maybe it is now allowed for you to think pass 4.543 billion years. > > > > You need permission. From who??? CRANKS? > > > > Furthermore, > > At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about > 75,000 years old. > > Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the age of the earth to be > 306,662,400 years old. > > The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay. > > > So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how come nobody out there sez he lied???? > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge > the unchallengeable. Blame Lord Kelvin and his thermodynamics calculations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 17:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <529d05b5-ab85-48cd-bcb9-b58b3c931c16n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585945 |
On May 27, det...@outlook.com wrote: > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks. > The particles spin at a specific rate. hmmm, this is a bit jumbled, Ed. If each atom is a clock and a particle, and spins at a specific rate, how does one measure that rate? 'rate' intrinsically implies time. Which requires a clock. So to measure the rate, you need a clock, which is the atom itself, which is made from smaller atoms (clocks), which have their own rates... Thinking about this makes my head spin - -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 18:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <be34bc21-337e-4703-bf56-7857252e9e22n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586040 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:29:35 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote: > On May 27, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks. > > The particles spin at a specific rate. > > hmmm, this is a bit jumbled, Ed. > > If each atom is a clock and a particle, and spins at a specific rate, > how does one measure that rate? > > 'rate' intrinsically implies time. Which requires a clock. So > to measure the rate, you need a clock, which is the atom itself, > which is made from smaller atoms (clocks), which have their > own rates... > > Thinking about this makes my head spin - > > -- > Rich Then stop thinking about time measurement, provided that what time is remains unknown. And regarding particles spinning around atoms, QM killed that concept 100 years ago, when orbits were replaced by probabilistic clouds describing chances to find electrons within their 3D volumes. Watch some CGI on YT. So far, for physics nothing is orbiting atoms. And even not "solid"particles are in there. For QFT, you have probabilistic clouds or "ripples in the quantum field" around nucleus, and any timing is meaningless down there. As I wrote many times here, what happens down 1 Armstrong (10E-10mt) is forbidden for humans to merely grasp. So, statistics started to be used 100 years ago (Thanks, Max Born) to explain atom's electric neutrality, valence electrons and so. Even "free" electrons are subjected to statistical laws and probabilities (Heisenberg's uncertainty, etc.). Maybe you should stay with Einstein's "time is what my clock shows", and use the best Swiss mechanical clock, down to 1 second. This "understanding" of time will cure your anxiety for life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 20:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <70662f8e-3601-4eab-92c6-11166dc23524n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586044 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:11:30 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:29:35 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote: > > On May 27, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks. > > > The particles spin at a specific rate. > > > > hmmm, this is a bit jumbled, Ed. > > > > If each atom is a clock and a particle, and spins at a specific rate, > > how does one measure that rate? > > > > 'rate' intrinsically implies time. Which requires a clock. So > > to measure the rate, you need a clock, which is the atom itself, > > which is made from smaller atoms (clocks), which have their > > own rates... > > > > Thinking about this makes my head spin - > > > > -- > > Rich > Then stop thinking about time measurement, provided that what time is remains unknown. > It is known. Time or temporal order is change. And change has rate. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 20:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <3a08a060-be39-43d0-95d6-a677c06cea7dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586046 |
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:18:07 AM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:11:30 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:29:35 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote: > > > On May 27, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks. > > > > The particles spin at a specific rate. > > > > > > hmmm, this is a bit jumbled, Ed. > > > > > > If each atom is a clock and a particle, and spins at a specific rate, > > > how does one measure that rate? > > > > > > 'rate' intrinsically implies time. Which requires a clock. So > > > to measure the rate, you need a clock, which is the atom itself, > > > which is made from smaller atoms (clocks), which have their > > > own rates... > > > > > > Thinking about this makes my head spin - > > > > > > -- > > > Rich > > Then stop thinking about time measurement, provided that what time is remains unknown. > > > It is known. Time or temporal order is change. And change has rate. > > Mitchell Raemsch Change has rate? - Around 1917, in Chaplin's time, rate was 14 frames/sec. Humans noticed that rate as not normal, but funny. - Around 1940, in Rita Hayworth's time, rate was 24 frames/sec. Humans perceived motion pictures as capturing nature rate. - Around 2000, in Neo's Matrix movies, rate was 60 frames/sec. Humans stopped having headaches and sore eyes. - Around 2010, in 2012 movie, rate was 120 frames/sec. Humans started having headaches again, sore eyes, and dizziness (Blue-Ray). - Around 2015, in live football games, rate was 240 frames/sec. Symptoms persisted, but ghost trails in sudden movements dissapeared. Which rate of change is enough for humans, after 100 years of experience with the capture of motion in movies? Is this problem somehow related to physics? Maybe we should focus on BIOPHYSICS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 09:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <677d3236-16d1-4c0d-9d92-c1fa85994484n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586040 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 7:29:35 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote: > On May 27, wrote: > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks. > > The particles spin at a specific rate. > > hmmm, this is a bit jumbled, Ed. > > If each atom is a clock and a particle, and spins at a specific rate, > how does one measure that rate? You choose a "standard." A long time ago, they divided a day into 24 hours. A day was one rotation of the earth, from noon until noon. Then they divided a day into hours, and hours in to minutes, and minutes into seconds. But the earth doesn't rotate exactly 365 times a year. So, scientists converted a second into something that is always the same. A second is now defined this way: "Since 1967, the second has been defined as exactly "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (at a temperature of 0 K and at mean sea level)." It's the official standard. All spin rates for particles can be measured using that standard for a second. > > 'rate' intrinsically implies time. Which requires a clock. So > to measure the rate, you need a clock, which is the atom itself, > which is made from smaller atoms (clocks), which have their > own rates... Just use the standard for a second. All clocks which tick at steady rates should tick at a specific rate relative to the standard. Every TYPE of clock might tick at a different rate, but by using the standard you can compare one rate to another. Good question. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-27 07:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <b7d211fc-984f-41ba-a382-54383b2bbd53n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585932 |
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:17:42 AM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote: > Once upon the time, a cretin wrote a paper that had an assertion about time... Things change. We have memories of such change. Memories are also 'change'. Time may be some measure, some parameter to describe changes or events. How can we proceed to define a parameter (time?) that would be useful in some respect to describe changes? Using our feelings? The motion of the stars? Something else? Should such a definition be a quantitative one or subjective one? So, how would YOU define 'time'? Is there anything wrong with the meaning of 'time' as used amongst physicists? Are they free to use whatever definition they want? Has their use of their concept (their operational definition of time) help them to progress, to discover, to engineer? Would alternate definitions of 'time' be more of use to them and to make them progress faster? etc... (note that such questions/topics have been discussed in thoroughly for over 2000 years)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-27 08:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <5f0cda9d-5233-4d35-b957-07d63245eebfn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585946 |
On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 16:39:25 UTC+2, rotchm wrote: > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:17:42 AM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote: > > Once upon the time, a cretin wrote a paper that had an assertion about time... > > > Things change. We have memories of such change. Memories are also 'change'. > Time may be some measure, some parameter to describe changes or events. > How can we proceed to define a parameter (time?) that would be useful in some respect to describe changes? > Using our feelings? The motion of the stars? Something else? > Should such a definition be a quantitative one or subjective one? Most of the terms we're using remain undefined. There are good reasons for it; but unfortunately not comprehendable by such a poor halfbrain > > So, how would YOU define 'time'? > > Is there anything wrong with the meaning of 'time' as used amongst physicists? Yes, poor halfbrain. > Are they free to use whatever definition they want? No, poor halfbrain. > Has their use of their concept (their operational definition of time) help them > to progress, to discover, to engineer? No, poor halfbrain. > Would alternate definitions of 'time' be more of use to them and to make them progress faster? Most of the terms we're using remain undefined. There are good reasons for it; but unfortunately not comprehendable by such a poor halfbrain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-27 09:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <a3d6b138-2c85-4e8b-afd0-c89a741f236dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585947 |
On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:39:30 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote: > Most of the terms we're using remain undefined. In physics, 'time' has a clear and precise meaning. Its has a very specific definition. If you are unaware of this, then search a little on the net. > not comprehendable by such a poor halfbrain Namecalling doesn't help the discussion. It just shows your lack of arguments and disrespect. > > So, how would YOU define 'time'? No answer? > > Is there anything wrong with the meaning of 'time' as used amongst physicists? > Yes, poor halfbrain. Namecalling doesn't help the discussion. It just shows your lack of arguments and disrespect. > > Are they free to use whatever definition they want? > No, poor halfbrain. Namecalling doesn't help the discussion. It just shows your lack of arguments and disrespect. > > Has their use of their concept (their operational definition of time) help them > > to progress, to discover, to engineer? > No, poor halfbrain. Namecalling doesn't help the discussion. It just shows your lack of arguments and disrespect. > Most of the terms we're using remain undefined. You said that already. So in your reply, you had no arguments, no support, no respect. Just namecalling. Good job!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-27 09:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <afd0ac7c-3496-4e5f-9346-3a3945f8a1b9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585932 |
My conclusion about this topic is as follows:
1) We, as living species, don't feel or register in any form the pass of time. We just can't, because we don't have
any internal organ or subsystem that is devoted to such a superfluous, metaphysical task.
2) We, as living species, do have subsystems that can sense "time duration" and trigger internal alarms: time to eat, time to sleep,
time to move from one place to another, etc. But, besides such "notifications", we can't feel the flow of time continuously. Only
jumps in time (expiration of time lapses, voluntarily programmed or not).
Hence, for us, time flow is meaningless. We can't feel the pass of seconds, linearly, nor even other superior scale.
We left it for "alarm clocks", either biological or technological.
3) The need to register the flow of time can be divided into spheres of influence of time on events:
- On STEM activities (Science, Technology, Engineering, Manufacturing), it's a need to measure the flow of time in analog terms.
We rely on technology to register such flow, as we can't. Then we use the results, while any task is commanded by devices, not humans.
- On civilian activities (most of what remains), we don't care about the flow of time but about lapses (time duration), and even so
we need of auxiliary systems to notify to us the expiration of the assigned time duration of whatever (or the excess above the
assigned lapse. We also depend on others to react to time-lapse expirations, humans or not. Also, depend on nature events.
- The same apply to military activities.
So, what remains are intellectual activities (like in arts, philosophy, etc.) were time is a matter of discussion: it's metaphysics.
5) The "crime at science" that Einstein perpetuated is the attempt to redefine time as dependent on MOTION, which belongs to
the first class (STEM), but the cretin TRIED to move such concept to other spheres of activities, and a bunch of retarded bought
that shit to be REAL outside of STEM sphere.
That subversive attempt to indoctrinate that "time is not what seems to be", was expanded further by Minkowski's SPACETIME.
Since that crap was brought out of the STEM sphere (and cosmology is OUTSIDE of STEM), the degeneracy of thought expanded
like WILDFIRE in the mind of some fucking LIBERALS, who dared to replace religion with metaphysics. This movement is the heart
of theories about what the Universe is and, even more disgraceful, when the Universe started and how is evolving.
So, being this my final thought about time, it's clear for me that humans don't register the flow of time (if such thing even exist), and
that such need was born due to the need of STEM sphere of activities to control cascades of events (thought as evidence that time
IS NEEDED to model reality).
Humans don't even need TIME. Cascade of events JUST HAPPEN, and we accept this and live in this way all our life. STEM require
that time exist as an analog variable that complement spatial positioning.
Humans only require to be told that different lapses expired (time duration), in order to move on and do other things.
For us, time is not a continuum, and we daily jump from one event to the next. Sometimes, they FEEL longer in time or shorter,
according to our experience of previous chain of events. But TIME, for us, has no meaning if we don't register it with "clocks".
But, some cretins are working on attosecond clocks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web