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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #663004 > unrolled thread

Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion.

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

Contents

  Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-04-23 14:51 +0000
    Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-23 16:56 +0200
      Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-24 04:11 +0000
    Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-23 12:59 -0500
      Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-04-23 20:44 +0000
        Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-23 16:08 -0500
          Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-04-23 22:01 +0000
            Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-23 20:05 -0500
          Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-24 00:03 +0000
            Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-04-24 01:03 +0000
              Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-24 07:19 +0200
              Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-24 18:40 +0000
                Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Llewellyn D'antonio <yoa@aia.it> - 2025-04-24 19:57 +0000
                Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Holbert Császár <rwrf@bdr.hu> - 2025-04-24 22:12 +0000
                  Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-04-24 23:32 +0000
                    Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-25 07:15 +0200
            Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Jerald Huranov Meng <dnv@hnvrnd.ru> - 2025-04-24 12:19 +0000
            Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-24 22:07 -0500
              Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-25 03:34 +0000
                Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-24 22:30 -0700
                  Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-27 09:27 -0700
                Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-26 21:05 -0500
                  Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-27 15:36 +0000
                    Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Jan Bakhmetev <tvvk@jbeha.ru> - 2025-04-27 20:49 +0000
                      Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-04-27 23:45 +0000
                        Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-28 00:54 +0000
                          Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Hudson Muzrukov <shkz@ozhk.ru> - 2025-04-28 11:03 +0000
                            Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-04-28 16:24 +0000
                              Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-28 18:52 +0200
                              Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-28 17:54 +0000
                                Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Josiah Turkov <ou@hkaki.ru> - 2025-04-28 23:00 +0000
                                  Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-04-29 01:06 +0000
                                    Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-28 18:38 -0700
                                      Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-28 19:36 -0700
                                        Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-28 20:16 -0700
                                          Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 12:53 -0800
                                    Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-28 21:34 -0500
                                    Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-29 07:55 +0200
                                    Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-29 12:44 +0000
                          Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-28 10:14 -0700
                            Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-28 14:10 -0500
        Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-23 23:18 +0200
      Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2025-04-27 13:47 +0000
    Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-24 03:04 +0000
    Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-24 00:17 -0700
      Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-24 10:02 +0200
        Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-24 23:08 -0700
    Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-24 10:21 +0200
      Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-24 10:19 +0200
        Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Taras Oborkin <rkr@insr.ru> - 2025-04-24 17:00 +0000
          Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-04-24 17:57 +0000
            Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-24 20:37 +0200
            Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-26 07:34 +0200
              Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-26 07:53 +0200
          Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-24 20:16 +0200
            Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Crescencian Beknazar-Yuzbashev <hena@sn.ru> - 2025-04-24 20:04 +0000
              Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-24 23:16 +0200
              Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-04-24 21:44 +0000
      Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-24 22:13 +0000
        Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-25 06:54 +0200
        Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-25 20:54 +0200
          Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Modesto Molochkov <smv@osoocoo.ru> - 2025-04-25 20:01 +0000
          Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-25 22:47 +0200
          Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-26 03:36 +0000
            Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an  illusion. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-25 22:39 -0700
              Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an  illusion. Ignacio Mahalov <nhih@iv.ru> - 2025-04-26 13:09 +0000
              Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-26 13:48 +0000
                Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Codey Mihalkov <eaoal@ok.ru> - 2025-04-26 14:20 +0000
                Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-26 17:06 +0200
        Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-27 08:10 +0200
    Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-24 21:04 +0000

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#663067

Den 25.04.2025 00:13, skrev gharnagel:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 8:21:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>
>>
>> In physics "time" is a well defined, measurable entity.
>>
>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf

> 
> Just because we can measure it doesn't mean we understand it.

You can't 'understand' why Nature works as she does.
A theory of physics is a mathematical model of an aspect of Nature.
It doesn't 'explain' anything.

The only test of a mathematical consistent theory
is if it can correctly predict what will be measured in experiments.
It takes but one wrong prediction to falsify a theory.

> And when we measure it, and different observers disagree with
> our measurement, and relativity "explains" the disagreement,
> might not really bring us closer to understanding it.

Relativity (SR/GR) does obviously not "explain" anything.
But SR/GR will correctly predict what the different observers
will measure in experiments.

If you think it is self-contradictory that different observers
have different measurements of the observed object's properties,
consider this:

The observer's state of motion can not affect the observed object.
But the observer's state of motion can affect the observer's
measurements of the observed object's properties.

> 
> I attended a lecture many years ago where it was explained that
> each of the four dimensions were really identical and we were
> always moving at the speed of light - along one of them.  That
> one was our time dimension.  That seemed to be very satisfying
> at the time.  This would mean that there is a basic symmetry
> between time and space.

This is nonsense.


Let "the moving object" be a clock.
The metric in flat spacetime can be written:

    dτ² = dt² - (dx² + dy² + dz²)/c²   (1)

where τ is what the clock shows, c is the speed of light
and t,x,y,z are the coordinates of an inertial frame of reference.

from (1) we have:
   (dτ/dt)² = (1 - ((dx/dt)²+(dy/dt)²+(dz/dt)²)/c²) = (1−v²/c²) (2)

where v = √((dx/dt)²+(dy/dt)²+(dz/dt)²) is the magnitude of
the moving object's velocity.

from (2) we have:
  dt/dτ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²) =  γ

Let the velocity of the clock be:
    v₁ = dx/dt   component along x-axis
    v₂ = dy/dt   component along y-axis
    v₃ = dz/dt   component along z-axis

The components of the four-velocity will be:
  U₀ = dt/dτ = γ                      component along the time axis
  U₁ = dx/dτ = (dx/dt)⋅(dt/dτ) = γ⋅v₁  component along the x-axis
  U₂ = dy/dτ = (dy/dt)⋅(dt/dτ) = γ⋅v₂  component along the y-axis
  U₃ = dx/dτ = (dz/dt)⋅(dt/dτ) = γ⋅v₃  component along the z-axis

If v = 0, the object is stationary and γ = 1.
U₀ = 1, U₁ = 0, U₂ = 0, U₃ = 0

So the "rate of the clock along the time axis" is 1.

That does _not_ mean that the clock is moving at the speed
of light along the  time axis (what a weird idea ).

It simply means that the clock is ticking at its normal
rate, one time unit per time unit.

The four "dimensions" are _not_ identical, the temporal "dimension"
is fundamentally different from the spatial "dimensions".


It can be shown that the magnitude of th four-velocity is invariant:

  U = - U₀² + U₁² + U₂² + U₃² = -1

> 
> More recently, some cracks in that view have appeared due to
> quantum mechanics.  Vaccaro has published a couple of papers
> about "Quantum asymmetry between time and space," (2016)
> arXiv:1502.04012.
> 
> One idea is that time reversal would be a tough problem for
> causality.


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#663070

Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 25.04.2025 00:13, skrev gharnagel:
>> Just because we can measure it doesn't mean we understand it.
> 
> You can't 'understand' why Nature works as she does.
> A theory of physics is a mathematical model of an aspect of Nature. It
> doesn't 'explain' anything.
> 
> The only test of a mathematical consistent theory is if it can correctly
> predict what will be measured in experiments.
> It takes but one wrong prediction to falsify a theory.

well thanks, but this is kind of false too. As you impose macros scale 
math and logic along your model. An explanation might not imply that. 
Remember that the math and logic only governs macro scale, not quantum and 
not beyond speed of light domains. Making my 

*_On the Divergent Matter of the Moving Koerpers Modlel_* even more true 
so much indeed.

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

#663071

On 4/25/2025 8:54 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> Den 25.04.2025 00:13, skrev gharnagel:
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 8:21:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> In physics "time" is a well defined, measurable entity.
>>>
>>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf
> 
>>
>> Just because we can measure it doesn't mean we understand it.
> 
> You can't 'understand' why Nature works as she does.
> A theory of physics is a mathematical model of an aspect of Nature.
> It doesn't 'explain' anything.
> 
> The only test of a mathematical consistent theory
> is if it can correctly predict what will be measured in experiments.


And as a proof that's the only test -  a relativistic
idiot can insult and slander anyone who disagree.

Fortunately, The Shit of his insane guru is not a
consistent theory.


> Relativity (SR/GR) does obviously not "explain" anything.
> But SR/GR will correctly predict what the different observers
> will measure in experiments.

A lie, of course - anyone can check GPS.

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

#663076

On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 18:54:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>
> Den 25.04.2025 00:13, skrev gharnagel:
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 8:21:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > In physics "time" is a well defined, measurable entity.
> > >
> > > https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf
> >
> > Just because we can measure it doesn't mean we understand it.
>
> You can't 'understand' why Nature works as she does.
> A theory of physics is a mathematical model of an aspect of Nature.
> It doesn't 'explain' anything.

I believe you are "misunderstanding" me.  It is possible to under-
stand why a theory works when you have experimental evidence for
the inputs to that theory.  For SR we have the principle of rela-
tivity, the constancy of the speed of light, etc.  Application of
those postulates (i.e., determined by measurements) allows us to
understand why time dilation happens.  We don't understand why
the principles exist -- at present.  We may someday, but those
will be based on some other measurements that we don't understand
why nature works that way.

> The only test of a mathematical consistent theory is if it can
> correctly predict what will be measured in experiments.
> It takes but one wrong prediction to falsify a theory.

Of course, but that one wrong prediction must be a GOOD prediction,
not one invented by an incompetent.  And if it turns out to BE a
good prediction, it will likely be based on different postulates.
Same with a good measurement.

> > And when we measure it, and different observers disagree with
> > our measurement, and relativity "explains" the disagreement,
> > might not really bring us closer to understanding it.
>
> Relativity (SR/GR) does obviously not "explain" anything.
> But SR/GR will correctly predict what the different observers
> will measure in experiments.
>
> If you think it is self-contradictory that different observers
> have different measurements of the observed object's properties,
> consider this:
>
> The observer's state of motion can not affect the observed object.
> But the observer's state of motion can affect the observer's
> measurements of the observed object's properties.

Again, you misunderstand me.  You are preaching to the choir.

> > I attended a lecture many years ago where it was explained that
> > each of the four dimensions were really identical and we were
> > always moving at the speed of light - along one of them.  That
> > one was our time dimension.  That seemed to be very satisfying
> > at the time.  This would mean that there is a basic symmetry
> > between time and space.
>
> This is nonsense.

No, it's not (but I disagree with it)

To play devil's advocate, what that lecturer said is EXACTLY what
the Minkowski diagram shows:  The stationary observer begins at
x = 0 and t = 0, but he doesn't STAY at t = 0.  He is moving at a
constant rate along the t-axis.  Usually, the t and x-axes have
the same scales (note: the speed of light is depicted at a 45 degree
angle).  Can you tell how fast he's moving along the t axis?

> Let "the moving object" be a clock.
> The metric in flat spacetime can be written:
>
>     dτ² = dt² - (dx² + dy² + dz²)/c²   (1)
>
> where τ is what the clock shows, c is the speed of light
> and t,x,y,z are the coordinates of an inertial frame of reference.
>
> from (1) we have:
>    (dτ/dt)² = (1 - ((dx/dt)²+(dy/dt)²+(dz/dt)²)/c²) = (1−v²/c²) (2)
>
> where v = √((dx/dt)²+(dy/dt)²+(dz/dt)²) is the magnitude of
> the moving object's velocity.
>
> from (2) we have:
>   dt/dτ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²) =  γ
>
> Let the velocity of the clock be:
>     v₁ = dx/dt   component along x-axis
>     v₂ = dy/dt   component along y-axis
>     v₃ = dz/dt   component along z-axis
>
> The components of the four-velocity will be:
>   U₀ = dt/dτ = γ                      component along the time axis
>   U₁ = dx/dτ = (dx/dt)⋅(dt/dτ) = γ⋅v₁  component along the x-axis
>   U₂ = dy/dτ = (dy/dt)⋅(dt/dτ) = γ⋅v₂  component along the y-axis
>   U₃ = dx/dτ = (dz/dt)⋅(dt/dτ) = γ⋅v₃  component along the z-axis
>
> If v = 0, the object is stationary and γ = 1.
> U₀ = 1, U₁ = 0, U₂ = 0, U₃ = 0
>
> So the "rate of the clock along the time axis" is 1.
>
> That does _not_ mean that the clock is moving at the speed
> of light along the  time axis (what a weird idea ).
>
> It simply means that the clock is ticking at its normal
> rate, one time unit per time unit.
>
> The four "dimensions" are _not_ identical, the temporal "dimension"
> is fundamentally different from the spatial "dimensions".

Not on a Minkowski diagram.  And your equations for four-velocity
have left out the "dimensions" of the dimensions: they aren't simply
v, they are v/c, so your dimensions are light-seconds/second, or
such.

> It can be shown that the magnitude of th four-velocity is invariant:
>
>   U[²] = - U₀² + U₁² + U₂² + U₃² = -1

Yes, and to the stationary observer, the speed of the clock along U₀
is no longer 1, it's shared with the speed along the spatial dimensions.
To the clock, however, it's happily moving along its t' axis - at speed
c.

To reiterate, I don't go along with time being another spatial
dimension,
even though the Minkowski diagram AND the Lorentz transform treat it
EXACTLY that way.

BTW, it has been shown the four-vector notation is invalid for tachyons
due to a nasty little error in the four-momentum derivation which nearly
everyone has missed.

Kapuscik, E., "On a Fatal Error in Tachyonic Physics," Intl. J. of
Theor. Phys., 54, pp. 4041-4045 (2013). DOI:10.1007/s10773-014-2458-1.
arXiv:1412.6010.

G. L. Harnagel, "Tachyons, the Four-Momentum Formalism and
Simultaneity,"
Universal Journal of Physics and Application 17(1): 1-7, 2023
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.

> > More recently, some cracks in that view have appeared due to
> > quantum mechanics.  Vaccaro has published a couple of papers
> > about "Quantum asymmetry between time and space," (2016)
> > arXiv:1502.04012.
> >
> > One idea is that time reversal would be a tough problem for
> > causality.

Another is that mass-energy can be localized in space but not in time,
else mass-energy is not conserved.

So I totally agree with you, Paul, that time is NOT a spatial dimension.
This means that using certain formalisms may bite you in the behind if
you're not careful.

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

#663079 — Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion.

gharnagel wrote:
>  We don't understand why
> the principles exist -- at present.  We may someday, but those
> will be based on some other measurements that we don't understand
> why nature works that way.


Who is "We"????




-- 
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]

#663085 — Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion.

The Starmaker wrote:

> gharnagel wrote:
>>  We don't understand why
>> the principles exist -- at present.  We may someday, but those will be
>> based on some other measurements that we don't understand why nature
>> works that way.
> 
> Who is "We"????

it's a royal form of me. Man, this is amazing, hard to believe, the 
smellensky of ukrana invested the stolen wealth in south africa, thus 
OUTSIDE the EU, nato and america. I can't believe the khazar_jews of the 
collective_west can be this stupid. Impertinent and stupid, same time.

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

#663086

On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 5:39:37 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> gharnagel wrote:
> >
> >  We don't understand why the principles exist -- at present.
> >  We may someday, but those will be based on some other
> > measurements that we don't understand why nature works that
> > way.
>
> Who is "We"????

I was speaking of the human race.  Are you in or out?

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

#663087

gharnagel wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 5:39:37 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> gharnagel wrote:
>> >
>> >  We don't understand why the principles exist -- at present.
>> >  We may someday, but those will be based on some other
>> > measurements that we don't understand why nature works that way.
>>
>> Who is "We"????
> 
> I was speaking of the human race.  Are you in or out?

what do you have with the human race, are you Chinese??

 Epstein and Prince Andrew accuser dies by suicide – family
Virginia Giuffre’s accusation of sexual abuse by the senior British royal 
was settled out of court in 2022 
https://www.rt.com/news/616342-virginia-giuffre-epstein-suicide/

So,… looks like the JEW Wet-Team finally got her. COVER STORY: «… 
Something, something, something,…. school bus accident,…. renal failure,… 
dead…» JD – US Marine: Jew Saying: «You May Get Money From Us,… But You 
Won’t Get To Spend It!…»

a young prostitute who partied and sexed it up with the rich and famous. 
she’s a ‘victim’ of poor parenting and proper guidance.

There’s too much secrecy surrounding her injuries and accidents and 
several stays at the hospital. She seemed to be extremely mentally 
unstable.

How ironic. Virginia moved to a penal colony that’s still owned by the 
British royal family with the king as the head of state.

Publish the entire list. Do not cherry pick, How many US Senators and 
Congress men and mayors are on that list ?

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

#663088

On 4/26/2025 3:48 PM, gharnagel wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 5:39:37 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> gharnagel wrote:
>> >
>> >  We don't understand why the principles exist -- at present.
>> >  We may someday, but those will be based on some other
>> > measurements that we don't understand why nature works that
>> > way.
>>
>> Who is "We"????
> 
> I was speaking of the human race.  Are you in or out?

You really should limit yourself to speak
in your own name, Harrie. No surprise, however,
that such an arrogant idiot believes the humanity
is speaking through his mouth.

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

#663098

Am Freitag000025, 25.04.2025 um 00:13 schrieb gharnagel:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 8:21:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>
>> Den 23.04.2025 16:51, skrev rhertz:
>> >
>> > No humans have been able to observe time or register the pass of time.
>> >
>> > Time is an illusion, it doesn't exist. Yet, science depends on almost
>> > exclusively time as a dimension. Like in GR spacetime, claiming time
>> as
>> > the fourth dimension is beyond stupid. Science relies on the
>> > mathematical construct of the flow of time, so theories can go beyond
>> a
>> > specific observation in a given instance.
>> >
>> > If humans CAN'T OBSERVE OR FEEL TIME, which is the actual value of the
>> > use of time as a fundamental variable?
>>
>> What Richard Hertz can feel or not can feel is irrelevant to physics.
>>
>> In physics "time" is a well defined, measurable entity.
>>
>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf
> 
> Just because we can measure it doesn't mean we understand it.
> And when we measure it, and different observers disagree with
> our measurement, and relativity "explains" the disagreement,
> might not really bring us closer to understanding it.
> 
> I attended a lecture many years ago where it was explained that
> each of the four dimensions were really identical and we were
> always moving at the speed of light - along one of them.  That
> one was our time dimension.  That seemed to be very satisfying
> at the time.  This would mean that there is a basic symmetry
> between time and space.
> 
> More recently, some cracks in that view have appeared due to
> quantum mechanics.  Vaccaro has published a couple of papers
> about "Quantum asymmetry between time and space," (2016)
> arXiv:1502.04012.
> 
> One idea is that time reversal would be a tough problem for
> causality.

You should think in terms of complex numbers (in three dimensions plus 
time).

This is a 'rotatable' construct, which would allow an 'opposite world', 
where the local time there runs backwards for us.

This is a 'geometric algebra' based on complex quaternions (also called 
'complex-four-vectors').

Now we have always only one direction of time, which is imaginary in any 
given context, but three real axes of space. Those are 'orthogonal' to 
the imaginary axis of time (because they are real).

Now the trick is, that you can rotate the axis of time around and always 
get an 'orthogonal' space, but a different one for any axis of time.

Now we could imagine an axis of time, which points backwards (in our view).

This 'backwards time' had also an orthogonal space, which is filled with 
'orthogonal' matter, too, which is 'anti-matter' in our view.

That anti-world could pass right through everything we see, because it 
is invisible for us.

This concept is actually a little strange, but could explain all sorts 
of strange findings.

I have written kind of 'book' about this, hence you can  have a look:

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


TH

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

#663044

On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 14:51:47 +0000, rhertz wrote:

> No humans have been able to observe time or register the pass of time.
>
> Time is an illusion, it doesn't exist. Yet, science depends on almost
> exclusively time as a dimension. Like in GR spacetime, claiming time as
> the fourth dimension is beyond stupid. Science relies on the
> mathematical construct of the flow of time, so theories can go beyond a
> specific observation in a given instance.
>
> If humans CAN'T OBSERVE OR FEEL TIME, which is the actual value of the
> use of time as a fundamental variable?
>
> And this applies to every single human activity, covering all what we
> do.
>
> So, when results considering time are presented to humans, their
> gullible idiocy force them to accept that such results have any meaning.
>
> We adore and worship a dimension that we can't feel or observe, and
> that's the way the civilization has evolved.
>
> Yet, the lack of ability of humans to feel or observe time plus the
> mismanagement of memory has condemned mankind to forget history, so most
> of the humans repeat errors without pause.
>
> If we don't have the capacity to record, entirely, our lives, and we
> constantly forget or distort any kind of historical event or punctual
> fact, we deserve the future that is being built around sentient robots,
> networked and powered with AI.
>
> We failed as a specie, and we'll pay it dearly in the near future and
> beyond.
>
> Do you imagine the world functioning in 2030? Really?
There is an excellent book I like written by a famous scholar Martin
Nilsson called Primitive Time Reckoning. It would be a step up for them
if the relativists were to study it.  Even animals have a better
understanding of time than relativists.
"The corpse flower, also known as the Titan Arum, blooms irregularly,
typically every 7 to 10 years."

"In Los Angeles, California, the 2025 17-year cicada emergence is not
expected to occur. Brood XIV, a large group of 17-year cicadas, will
emerge in a dozen states in the Eastern United States, including states
like New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Los Angeles is not in the
Brood XIV range."

"In the Philippines, the periodic breeding of sea urchins, specifically
Tripneustes gratilla, is typically observed from June to November, with
a major peak in November."

Time is real because time = distance/ speed. e.g. 2 hours = 60 miles/ 30
mph.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

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

csiph-web