Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #615586 > unrolled thread

Perfection

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Perfection Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 11:03 -0700
    Re: Perfection The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-19 11:09 -0700
      Re: Perfection The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-20 09:49 -0700
        Re: Perfection The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-20 23:21 -0700
          Re: Perfection Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 23:23 -0700
    Re: Perfection "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 13:33 -0700

#615586 — Perfection

Better our devices are - more resistance
to the nature and its fancies they have.
A perfect clock would ignore the nature
completely.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#615687

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> 
> Better our devices are - more resistance
> to the nature and its fancies they have.
> A perfect clock would ignore the nature
> completely.


nature is not ...imperfect.

-- 
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]

#615763

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >
> > Better our devices are - more resistance
> > to the nature and its fancies they have.
> > A perfect clock would ignore the nature
> > completely.
> 
> nature is not ...imperfect.

In other words, we live in a Perfect world.


-- 
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]

#615827

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >
> > > Better our devices are - more resistance
> > > to the nature and its fancies they have.
> > > A perfect clock would ignore the nature
> > > completely.
> >
> > nature is not ...imperfect.
> 
> In other words, we live in a Perfect world.

and a pefect clock would not lose track of time..





-- 
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]

#615828

On Friday, 21 July 2023 at 08:21:23 UTC+2, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote: 
> > 
> > The Starmaker wrote: 
> > > 
> > > Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > Better our devices are - more resistance 
> > > > to the nature and its fancies they have. 
> > > > A perfect clock would ignore the nature 
> > > > completely. 
> > > 
> > > nature is not ...imperfect. 
> > 
> > In other words, we live in a Perfect world.
> and a pefect clock would not lose track of time..

It wouldn't. And it would ignore the nature 
completely. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615853

On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 11:03:40 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> Better our devices are - more resistance 
> to the nature and its fancies they have. 
> A perfect clock would ignore the nature 
> completely.

A clock's physicality has the time property in order to count it.
The measuring device must have the property it is meant to measure.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web