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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #653080 > unrolled thread

Perfect clocks

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

Contents

  Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-26 11:59 +0200
    Re: Perfect clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-04-26 12:29 +0200
      Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-26 18:25 +0200
        Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-26 20:41 +0200
          Re: Perfect clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-04-26 22:09 +0200
            Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-26 22:31 +0200
              Re: Perfect clocks Kanyon Bazanov <baa@oon.ru> - 2024-04-26 20:47 +0000
        Re: Perfect clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-04-26 18:31 +0200
      Re: Perfect clocks Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-04-26 14:21 +0200
      Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-26 13:21 +0200
    Re: Perfect clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-26 08:34 -0700
      Re: Perfect clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-27 16:46 -0700
    Re: Perfect clocks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-04-26 21:09 +0200
      Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-26 21:36 +0200
        Re: Perfect clocks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-04-27 11:50 +0200
          Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-27 13:01 +0200
            Re: Perfect clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-27 11:07 -0700
          Re: Perfect clocks hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-04-27 19:50 +0000
            Re: Perfect clocks Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 13:13 -0700
            Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-27 23:19 +0200
              Re: Perfect clocks hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-04-28 00:08 +0000
                Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-28 06:04 +0200
            Re: Perfect clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-28 12:40 +0300
              Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-28 13:32 +0200
                Re: Perfect clocks hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-04-29 12:27 +0000
                  Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-29 16:30 +0200
                    Re: Perfect clocks hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-04-29 17:41 +0000
                      Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-29 20:42 +0200
                        Re: Perfect clocks hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-04-29 22:08 +0000
                          Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-30 04:44 +0200
                            Re: Perfect clocks hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-05-01 11:41 +0000
                              Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-05-01 19:06 +0200
                                Re: Perfect clocks Jeffie Miklós <iiky@keeef.hu> - 2024-05-01 21:10 +0000
                                Re: Perfect clocks hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-05-04 04:05 +0000
                                  Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-05-04 07:10 +0200
                                  Re: Perfect clocks Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-05-06 00:55 -0400
                                    Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-05-06 07:11 +0200
                                Re: Perfect clocks Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2024-05-04 10:46 -0500
                                  Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-05-04 19:51 +0200
                                    Re: Perfect clocks hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-05-05 23:59 +0000
                                      Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-05-06 07:07 +0200
                                        Re: Perfect clocks hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-05-06 12:56 +0000
                                          Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-05-06 17:50 +0200
                                            Re: Perfect clocks hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-05-06 17:14 +0000
                                              Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-05-06 19:34 +0200
                                              Re: Perfect clocks King Tzekhmistrenko <ktrsk@oe.ru> - 2024-05-06 22:30 +0000
                                  Re: Perfect clocks Britain Szabó <antir@aniiii.hu> - 2024-05-04 19:14 +0000
                                    Re: Perfect clocks Edkah Stavropoulos <oro@aloosv.gr> - 2024-05-05 08:26 +0000
                                      Re: Perfect clocks FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2024-05-05 07:52 -0400
                                  Re: Perfect clocks Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-05-06 02:59 -0400
                                    Re: Perfect clocks Zadbiel Csordás <sclcl@srz.hu> - 2024-05-06 17:14 +0000
                              Re: Perfect clocks Everly Koustoubos <slosv@olbusb.gr> - 2024-05-01 21:20 +0000
              Re: Perfect clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-28 10:45 -0700
                Re: Perfect clocks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-28 11:33 -0700
                  Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-28 21:19 +0200
              Re: Perfect clocks hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-04-28 20:52 +0000
                Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-29 07:55 +0200
                Re: Perfect clocks Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 11:55 +0300
                  Re: Perfect clocks Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-04-29 13:20 +0200
      Re: Perfect clocks Ethan Wojewódzki <wz@haww.pl> - 2024-04-26 19:50 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#653080 — Perfect clocks

More stable, more independent on the environment
and its fancies a device is - better it is.
Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#653081

Le 26/04/2024 à 11:59, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
> More stable, more independent on the environment
> and its fancies a device is - better it is.
> Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

Like nature despised you completely? I understand why you
hate nature then :-)

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

#653082

W dniu 26.04.2024 o 14:21, Python pisze:
> Le 26/04/2024 à 13:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> W dniu 26.04.2024 o 12:29, Python pisze:
>>> Le 26/04/2024 à 11:59, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
>>>> More stable, more independent on the environment
>>>> and its fancies a device is - better it is.
>>>> Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
>>>
>>> Like nature despised you completely? I understand why you
>>> hate nature then :-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> See, trash - I've proven 
> 
> that you are a demented ranting old fart? Sure.

The mumble of your idiot guru was not even
consistent, and it has been proven. Insults
cast by some religious maniacs are changing
nothing, sorry, trash.

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

#653086

W dniu 26.04.2024 o 18:31, Python pisze:
> Le 26/04/2024 à 18:25, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
> ...
>> The mumble of Maciej Wozniak was not even
>> consistent, and he has been proven demented
> 
> Sure.

No, I didn't write it. Poor stinker Python is
impudently lying, as expected from a Shit's
worshipper.

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

#653103

Le 26/04/2024 à 20:41, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
> W dniu 26.04.2024 o 18:31, Python pisze:
>> Le 26/04/2024 à 18:25, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
>> ...
>>> The mumble of Maciej Wozniak was not even
>>> consistent, and he has been proven demented
>>
>> Sure.
> 
> No, I didn't write it

I corrected a few typos.

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

#653104

W dniu 26.04.2024 o 22:09, Python pisze:
> Le 26/04/2024 à 20:41, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
>> W dniu 26.04.2024 o 18:31, Python pisze:
>>> Le 26/04/2024 à 18:25, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
>>> ...
>>>> The mumble of Maciej Wozniak was not even
>>>> consistent, and he has been proven demented
>>>
>>> Sure.
>>
>> No, I didn't write it
> 
> I corrected a few typos.

You lied impudently, as expected from a Shit's
fanatic. Just like your twin-idiot Dono.

Well, The Shit of your idiot guru has been proven
inconsistent; what else could you do.

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

#653105

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> W dniu 26.04.2024 o 22:09, Python pisze:
>>>>> The mumble of Maciej Wozniak was not even consistent, and he has
>>>>> been proven demented
>>>>
>>>> Sure.
>>>
>>> No, I didn't write it
>> 
>> I corrected a few typos.
> 
> You lied impudently, as expected from a Shit's fanatic. Just like your
> twin-idiot Dono. Well, The Shit of your idiot guru has been proven
> inconsistent; what else could you do.

your country a man marry anozer man.

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

#653097

Le 26/04/2024 à 18:25, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
...
> The mumble of Maciej Wozniak was not even
> consistent, and he has been proven demented

Sure.
.
> Insults cast by some old Polish maniac are changing
> nothing, sorry,

Exactly.

> trash.

Nice signature.

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

#653089

Le 26/04/2024 à 13:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> W dniu 26.04.2024 o 12:29, Python pisze:
>> Le 26/04/2024 à 11:59, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
>>> More stable, more independent on the environment
>>> and its fancies a device is - better it is.
>>> Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
>>
>> Like nature despised you completely? I understand why you
>> hate nature then :-)
>>
>>
> 
> See, trash - I've proven 

that you are a demented ranting old fart? Sure.

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

#653093

W dniu 26.04.2024 o 12:29, Python pisze:
> Le 26/04/2024 à 11:59, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
>> More stable, more independent on the environment
>> and its fancies a device is - better it is.
>> Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
> 
> Like nature despised you completely? I understand why you
> hate nature then :-)
> 
> 

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your
beloved guru to be not even consistent, and
you can do nothing about it apart of raving
and spitting.
But, of course, you do what you can.

BTW, have you already  learnt what a function
is? Are you still trying to determine its
properties applying a French  definition of
a different word?

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

#653087

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> 
> More stable, more independent on the environment
> and its fancies a device is - better it is.
> Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

What would a "perfect clock" be made of, a Superman costume? 

-- 
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]

#653150

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >
> > More stable, more independent on the environment
> > and its fancies a device is - better it is.
> > Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
> 
> What would a "perfect clock" be made of, a Superman costume?

The perfect clock in Albert Einstein is any 'clock' that is related
to...atomic bombs.


the list is long...

but I'll start the list
cause yous find 'thinking' causes too much energy on your part...

doomsday clock
denotation atomic bomb clock




oooh my head hurts.




-- 
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]

#653100

Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:

> More stable, more independent on the environment
> and its fancies a device is - better it is.
> Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,

Jan

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

#653101

W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:
> Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> 
>> More stable, more independent on the environment
>> and its fancies a device is - better it is.
>> Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
> 
> Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,

What is "perfect nature", Lod?

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

#653118

Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:

> W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:
> > Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > 
> >> More stable, more independent on the environment
> >> and its fancies a device is - better it is.
> >> Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
> > 
> > Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,
> 
> What is "perfect nature", Lod?

There is only one 'Nature',

Jan

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

#653120

W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:50, J. J. Lodder pisze:
> Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> 
>> W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:
>>> Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> More stable, more independent on the environment
>>>> and its fancies a device is - better it is.
>>>> Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
>>>
>>> Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,
>>
>> What is "perfect nature", Lod?
> 
> There is only one 'Nature',

And that "perfect nature" you mentioned - is?

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

#653135

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> 
> W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:50, J. J. Lodder pisze:
> > Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >
> >> W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:
> >>> Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> More stable, more independent on the environment
> >>>> and its fancies a device is - better it is.
> >>>> Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
> >>>
> >>> Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,
> >>
> >> What is "perfect nature", Lod?
> >
> > There is only one 'Nature',
> 
> And that "perfect nature" you mentioned - is?

Nature is perfect because it could not be possible any other way.



-- 
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]

#653140

J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >
> > W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:
> > >
> > > Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > More stable, more independent on the environment
> > > > and its fancies a device is - better it is.
> > > > Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

A very strange assertion since clocks are supposed to
measure something that is at the very basis of reality.

> > > Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,
> > 
> > What is "perfect nature", Lod?
>
> There is only one 'Nature',
>
> Jan

Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
"time" ... but what is "time"?  Does it have one, or more,
parts?  What is "now"?  Clocks are supposed to model time,
so what what do we assume "time" is?

At present, we assume the duration of a second of time is
described by 9,192, 631,770 cycles of the standard Cs-133
hyper-fine transition.  Since that's a part of nature, Woz's
assertion makes no sense.  OTOH, do we count anything built
by humans as a part of nature, too?

That fact appears to be that there is "something" that rules
the passage of time, but we have no clue as to what that is.
One guy with whom I had a discussion about that:  it's a
quantum action effect.  Maybe we'll find it someday, 'way
down there at the Planck time level?  Could be, I dunno.

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

#653141

On 04/27/2024 12:50 PM, gharnagel wrote:
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>> Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>> >
>> > W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:
>> > >
>> > > Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > More stable, more independent on the environment
>> > > > and its fancies a device is - better it is.
>> > > > Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
>
> A very strange assertion since clocks are supposed to
> measure something that is at the very basis of reality.
>
>> > > Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,
>> > > What is "perfect nature", Lod?
>>
>> There is only one 'Nature',
>>
>> Jan
>
> Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
> The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
> "time" ... but what is "time"?  Does it have one, or more,
> parts?  What is "now"?  Clocks are supposed to model time,
> so what what do we assume "time" is?
>
> At present, we assume the duration of a second of time is
> described by 9,192, 631,770 cycles of the standard Cs-133
> hyper-fine transition.  Since that's a part of nature, Woz's
> assertion makes no sense.  OTOH, do we count anything built
> by humans as a part of nature, too?
>
> That fact appears to be that there is "something" that rules
> the passage of time, but we have no clue as to what that is.
> One guy with whom I had a discussion about that:  it's a
> quantum action effect.  Maybe we'll find it someday, 'way
> down there at the Planck time level?  Could be, I dunno.

Time is usually considered a continuous quantity.

I hope that people who study quantum mechanics understand
that:

superstrings are as smaller than atoms as atoms than us,

that Planck length and Angstrom's are about either side atoms,

that Technicolour is a theory that it's quarks all the way down,

that the fundamental physical constants of atomic quantities get smaller
measure over time in energy of experiment, called "running constants",

that GR is in front of SR not the other way around,

that particle mechanics or electron physics is sort of
a conceit whether they even exist,

that particle/wave duality is a sort of wave-particle/wave-resonance
dichotomy,

that in mathematics there are at least three different definitions of
continuity,

that measure theory for the measure problem indicates the real character
of real analysis the integral calculus,

that time is a continuous quantity,

and, in physics,
it's open and it's closed,
it's flat and it's curved,
the cosmological constant is vanishing yet non-zero,
and time symmetry has never been falsified.

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

#653144

W dniu 27.04.2024 o 21:50, gharnagel pisze:
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>> Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>> >
>> > W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:
>> > >
>> > > Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > More stable, more independent on the environment
>> > > > and its fancies a device is - better it is.
>> > > > Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
> 
> A very strange assertion since clocks are supposed to
> measure something that is at the very basis of reality.
> 
>> > > Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,
>> > > What is "perfect nature", Lod?
>>
>> There is only one 'Nature',
>>
>> Jan
> 
> Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
> The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
> "time" ... but what is "time"? 

Time is what clocks indicate - your idiot guru
was actually right at this point. It's no
way a part of nature, sorry, poor halfbrain.


  Does it have one, or more,
> parts?  What is "now"?  Clocks are supposed to model time,
> so what what do we assume "time" is?
> 
> At present, we assume the duration of a second of time is
> described by 9,192, 631,770 cycles of the standard Cs-133

Oh, do you? Sane people don't, anyone can
check GPS.


> hyper-fine transition.  Since that's a part of nature, Woz's
> assertion makes no sense. 

Since it's not - YOUR assertions makes no
sense, Har.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web