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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #665283 > unrolled thread

Rate of Change

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

Contents

  Rate of Change Street <street@shellcrash.com> - 2025-07-27 11:14 +0000
    Re: Rate of Change Willilam Babuh <bim@aimwi.ru> - 2025-07-27 11:39 +0000
    Re: Rate of Change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-07-27 13:59 +0200
      Re: Rate of Change Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-27 18:03 +0200
        Re: Rate of Change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-28 20:27 +0200
          Re: Rate of Change "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-30 22:33 +0200
            Re: Rate of Change Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-31 06:03 +0200
            Re: Rate of Change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-07-30 22:56 -0700
              Re: Rate of Change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-07-31 23:27 -0700
                Re: Rate of Change nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-08-01 09:50 +0200
            Re: Rate of Change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-31 08:43 +0200
              Re: Rate of Change "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-31 22:16 +0200
                Re: Rate of Change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-01 09:53 +0200
                  Re: Rate of Change "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-01 22:31 +0200
                    Re: Rate of Change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-01 23:42 -0700
                      Re: Rate of Change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-02 10:11 +0200
                    Re: Rate of Change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-01 23:45 -0700
                    Re: Rate of Change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-02 10:04 +0200
                      Re: Rate of Change "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-02 11:36 +0200
                        Re: Rate of Change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-03 08:06 +0200
                          Re: Rate of Change Edmund Balanovski <bmesnl@akvdb.ru> - 2025-08-03 09:54 +0000
                          Re: Rate of Change "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-03 22:35 +0200
                            Re: Rate of Change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-03 22:05 -0700
                              Re: Rate of Change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-04 09:06 +0200
                                Re: Rate of Change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-04 09:11 -0700
                                  Re: Rate of Change squalk <sq@net.inv> - 2025-08-04 18:01 +0100
                                    Re: Rate of Change Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-04 17:23 +0000
                                  Re: Rate of Change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-04 12:40 -0700
                                    Re: Rate of Change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-04 22:43 -0700
                                      Re: Rate of Change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-05 09:46 -0700
                                        Re: Rate of Change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-05 21:30 -0700
                                      Re: Rate of Change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-07 10:12 -0700
                                        Re: Rate of Change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-10 06:20 +0200
                                          Re: Rate of Change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-10 23:34 -0700
                                            Re: Rate of Change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-12 08:55 +0200
                                              Re: Rate of Change Marcelino Valchikovsky <vch@kosiea.ru> - 2025-08-12 08:19 +0000
                                              Re: Rate of Change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-15 10:29 -0700
                                                Re: Rate of Change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-16 07:23 +0200
                                                  Re: Rate of Change Bubba Kalimahi <mkiu@miiibak.ru> - 2025-08-16 10:34 +0000
                                                    Re: Rate of Change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-17 10:30 +0200
                                                      Re: Rate of Change Bowen Metrofanis <nomo@sbbeww.gr> - 2025-08-17 13:07 +0000
                                                        Re: Rate of Change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-18 09:13 +0200
                                                  Re: Rate of Change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-17 22:17 -0700
                                                    Re: Rate of Change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-18 09:39 +0200
                                                      Re: Rate of Change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-20 01:07 -0700
                            Re: Rate of Change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-04 08:59 +0200
                              Re: Rate of Change "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-08-04 11:51 +0200
                                Re: Rate of Change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-04 09:17 -0700
                                  Re: Rate of Change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-04 09:24 -0700
                              Re: Rate of Change Percival Dudorov <duadc@dlo.ru> - 2025-08-04 14:33 +0000
                                Re: Rate of Change Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-08-05 09:00 +0200
                                  Re: Rate of Change Johnathon Babadzhanov <nbnz@daa.ru> - 2025-08-05 11:51 +0000
            Re: Rate of Change Moshe Stavropoulos <eeou@svh.gr> - 2025-07-31 16:08 +0000
              Re: Rate of Change Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-07-31 19:54 +0200
    Re: Rate of Change Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-07-27 07:47 -0700
      Re: Rate of Change Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:02 -0800
    Re: Rate of Change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-07-27 11:05 -0700
      Re: Rate of Change The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-08-02 10:15 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#665283 — Rate of Change

Time is not inherently linear. It is not merely a fourth axis in a fixed 
spacetime model. Rather, it emerges as both a perceptual and physical 
construct tied to the rate of change within systems. When this rate of 
change deviates significantly—especially in contexts involving mass and 
velocity—it can affect how time passes relative to an observer, producing 
measurable physical effects. In some cases, this may even lead to 
gravitational anomalies.

Traditionally, physics has treated time as a dimension much like length, 
width, and height. This is the foundation of the spacetime model 
introduced in Einstein’s theories of relativity. Yet there exists another 
interpretation that is equally grounded in scientific observation: that 
time is not a fixed background, but a derived property—a way of comparing 
how systems evolve. From the perspective of thermodynamics, time’s arrow 
points in the direction of increasing entropy, signifying that what we 
experience as the forward flow of time is actually a measure of 
irreversible change. In quantum mechanics, time behaves differently than 
in classical systems, often not even functioning as a dynamic operator in 
the same way space does. Even in relativity, the passage of time is not 
absolute. Instead, time is observed to flow differently depending on 
relative speed and gravitational conditions.

Einstein’s special relativity shows that time slows down for objects 
moving at high speeds. The faster something travels, the more slowly time 
passes for it relative to a stationary observer. General relativity 
extends this further, showing that strong gravitational fields also slow 
down time. These well-documented phenomena reveal that time is not 
immutable—it stretches and contracts in response to mass and motion. It 
is not strictly linear, but fluid and conditional, dependent on context 
and relative conditions. This supports the view that time is 
fundamentally tied to the rate of change rather than acting as an 
independent dimension.

On Earth, most of our experience occurs within a relatively stable 
gravitational field, and we tend to move at similar speeds. As a result, 
the rates of change we observe appear consistent and synchronized. This 
creates the illusion of linear, uniform time. However, this uniformity is 
local, not universal. A practical example is the necessity of correcting 
GPS satellite clocks for both gravitational and velocity-based time 
dilation. The technology depends on compensating for the slight but 
significant difference in the rate at which time passes at altitude and 
orbital speed compared to time on the surface of the Earth.

When we introduce systems involving rapid motion and concentrated mass, 
such as helicopter blades, we start to see more dramatic divergence in 
the rate of change. Helicopter blades are made of dense material and 
rotate at extremely high speeds. Although their tangential velocity is 
far below the speed of light, they nonetheless experience minor but real 
time dilation. These effects can be calculated using special relativity. 
While small in absolute terms, they become meaningful when considered as 
a differential from the Earth-normal time rate. The rotating blades are, 
in effect, operating in a slightly different temporal frame from the 
surrounding environment.

Extrapolating from this, if high-mass, high-speed rotation can compress 
local time, then it could also produce distortions in inertia and 
gravity. This is similar to ideas proposed in theoretical propulsion 
systems such as the Mach Effect and the Woodward drive, which posit that 
inertia and gravitational interaction are not fixed, but functions of 
changing energy states and time. In this framework, altering the rate of 
time locally could feasibly modify the experience of gravity.

Gravity, in general relativity, is described as the curvature of 
spacetime caused by mass and energy. If mass-energy can influence the 
passage of time, then the reverse may also be true: manipulating 
time—through changes in mass distribution or velocity—could affect 
gravitational force. This leads to the possibility of creating conditions 
that mimic or reduce gravity. In other words, if helicopter blades or 
other rotating mass systems can sufficiently alter their local time rate, 
they might generate a gravity-like reduction or repulsion. This 
conceptual model forms a speculative but not baseless approach to 
understanding so-called anti-gravity effects.

Some experimental anomalies, like the Podkletnov effect, have fueled this 
hypothesis. In these controversial experiments, a spinning 
superconducting disc appeared to reduce the weight of objects placed 
above it. While unconfirmed and highly debated, such results suggest that 
the interaction between mass, motion, and local time rates could produce 
measurable changes in gravitational behavior. Another reference for this 
is Eric Laithwaite, a British electrical engineer, became known for his 
work with linear induction motors and his controversial claims about 
gyroscopes and "anti-gravity."

Taken together, these observations support the idea that time is best 
understood not as a linear axis but as an emergent property of changing 
systems. When the rate of change departs significantly from the 
norm—particularly in high-mass, high-velocity systems—relativistic time 
dilation occurs, potentially affecting inertia and gravity. While much of 
this remains theoretical, the underlying principle aligns with known 
physics. The notion that localized time differentials could manifest as 
anti-gravity is not inherently unscientific. It is a provocative 
extension of established principles and invites further exploration into 
the true nature of time and its relationship to motion, matter, and the 
forces that shape our universe.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#665284

Street wrote:

> Time is not inherently linear. It is not merely a fourth axis in a fixed
> spacetime model. Rather, it emerges as both a perceptual and physical
> construct tied to the rate of change within systems. When this rate of
> change deviates significantly—especially in contexts involving mass and
> velocity—it can affect how time passes relative to an observer,
> producing measurable physical effects. In some cases, this may even lead
> to gravitational anomalies.

you are using words saying nothing, idiot. A change involves time, which 
is linear. A not linear time is not time, hence useless to anything, you 
uneducated idiot.

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

#665285

Street <street@shellcrash.com> wrote:

> Time is not inherently linear. It is not merely a fourth axis in a fixed
> spacetime model.

Time is what the clock says it is.
Hence it is inherently linear.
If you want time to be non-linear it is up to you to say
what other time standard it is to be compared with.

Jan

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

#665289

On 7/27/2025 1:59 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Street <street@shellcrash.com> wrote:
> 
>> Time is not inherently linear. It is not merely a fourth axis in a fixed
>> spacetime model.
> 
> Time is what the clock says it is.

In the reality. In physics time is what a
relativistic idiot says it  is.

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

#665310

Am Sonntag000027, 27.07.2025 um 18:03 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
> On 7/27/2025 1:59 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Street <street@shellcrash.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Time is not inherently linear. It is not merely a fourth axis in a fixed
>>> spacetime model.
>>
>> Time is what the clock says it is.
> 
> In the reality. In physics time is what a
> relativistic idiot says it  is.
> 


A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which 
happens at a known fixed frequency.

But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.


Sure, we usually assume, that a day is 24 hours long.

But 'hour' was derived from the 24th part of a day.

We have some right to assume, that the rotation of Earth does not change 
abruptly or even slowly, hence we are entitled to assume, that the day 
has always the same length.

But this is difficult to prove, if the Earth itself is also our main 
'clock'.

Very long ago every noon some markings were carved into the early form 
of a calendar.

These days were counted and we have this early calendar as an early form 
of a clock.

Today much shorter intervals are countable and we have much better clocks.

But still we count events and calculate some sort of time values.

But most likely nature doesn't care about our clocks.


TH

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

#665324

Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:
> 
> A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which 
> happens at a known fixed frequency.
> 
> But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.

There is no alternative to this definition.

> 
> 
> Sure, we usually assume, that a day is 24 hours long.
> 
> But 'hour' was derived from the 24th part of a day.

A _mean_ solar day is 24⋅60⋅60 seconds = 86400 seconds.
For a very long time this was the definition of a second.
But since the standard was one clock at Greenwich, it was
very impractical to sync clocks to the standard.
So the SI standard is based on the frequency of a hyper fine
transition in the Cs atom.

They made the new definition so that the length of a mean
solar day should be 86400 seconds.
But as of 2008 a mean solar day was 86400.002 SI seconds.
This is because the rotation of the Earth has slowed a little
since 1980, and maybe they made the new definition a bit too fast?

> We have some right to assume, that the rotation of Earth does not change 
> abruptly or even slowly, hence we are entitled to assume, that the day 
> has always the same length.

We don't have to assume, we know.

Atomic clocks running according to the SI-definition are more
stable than the rotation of the Earth. So we know that the angular
speed of Earth's rotation varies a little. In the long run it seems
to slow down.

The rate of the TAI is defined by an SI clock on the geoid.

As of 1 Jan 1972 the UTC was defined to be 10 seconds behind
the TAI. Leap seconds are inserted in UTC to keep the mean sun in
the prime meridian at 12:00.00 UTC. As of 1 Jan 2017 UTC was
37 seconds behind TAI.

See:
https://www.hko.gov.hk/en/gts/time/Historicalleapseconds.htm

Note that the time between each time a leap second is added varies
between 0.5 year and 5 years, which means that the angular
speed of Earth's rotation varies.

> But this is difficult to prove, if the Earth itself is also our main 
> 'clock'.
As long as clocks have existed, "the Earth itself" has not been
the "main clock". If you have a clock showing "local time", that
is that "the mean Sun" is in the south at 12 hours, then the time
showed by a sundial may show anything between 11:44 and 12:16.

That is because the length of a solar day varies between
86379 seconds and 86429 seconds. This is partly because Earth's
orbit is elliptical, and partly because the angle between the
ecliptic plane and the equatorial plane is 23.4⁰.

For centuries the rate of all clocks has been 86400 seconds
per mean solar day.
The solar day varies too much to be used as the time unit of
a clock.

> Very long ago every noon some markings were carved into the early form 
> of a calendar.
> 
> These days were counted and we have this early calendar as an early form 
> of a clock.
> 
> Today much shorter intervals are countable and we have much better clocks.
> 
> But still we count events and calculate some sort of time values.
> 
> But most likely nature doesn't care about our clocks.

But modern people couldn't do without.

> 
> 
> TH



-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#665325

On 7/30/2025 10:33 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
 > Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:
 >>
 >> A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which 
happens at a known fixed frequency.
 >>
 >> But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.
 >
 > In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.


In _physics_ "time" is some gedanken
delusion of some brainwashed religious
maniacs like yourself.
Anyone can check GPS, real clocks have
little in common with your absurd tales.


 > A _mean_ solar day is 24⋅60⋅60 seconds = 86400 seconds.
 > For a very long time this was the definition of a second.
 > But since the standard was one clock at Greenwich, it was
 > very impractical to sync clocks to the standard.
 > So the SI standard is based on the frequency of a hyper fine
 > transition in the Cs atom.

And, anyone can check GPS or another serious
time system - your ideological absurd is
ignored.

 >
 > They made the new definition so that the length of a mean
 > solar day should be 86400 seconds.

A lie, as expected from a lying piece
of fanatic shit. You've admitted many
times that according to your wannabe
definition solar day at a GPS satellite
should be 86400.000034 seconds (AFAIR).

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

#665326

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:33:39 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

>Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> 
>> A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which 
>> happens at a known fixed frequency.
>> 
>> But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.
>
>In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
>The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
>So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.
>
>There is no alternative to this definition.

If time in physics is what we measure by clocks by definition, then
your time in physics will always be...imprecise. 

 

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

#665343

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:56:16 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:33:39 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen"
><relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
>
>>Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> 
>>> A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which 
>>> happens at a known fixed frequency.
>>> 
>>> But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.
>>
>>In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
>>The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
>>So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.
>>
>>There is no alternative to this definition.
>
>If time in physics is what we measure by clocks by definition, then
>your time in physics will always be...imprecise. 
>
> 


furthermore, you got clocks..whether a sundial, or mechanic clock -
both are based on sun time. and the sun is imprecise.
Then you gots t
t for time is
mathematics...
and numbers don't exist out there.

Time doesn't exist out there.

Time is an optical delusion.

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

#665347

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

> On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:56:16 -0700, The Starmaker
> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:33:39 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen"
> ><relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
> >
> >>Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:
> >>> 
> >>> A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which
> >>> happens at a known fixed frequency.
> >>> 
> >>> But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.
> >>
> >>In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
> >>The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
> >>So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.
> >>
> >>There is no alternative to this definition.
> >
> >If time in physics is what we measure by clocks by definition, then
> >your time in physics will always be...imprecise. 
> >
> > 
> 
> 
> furthermore, you got clocks..whether a sundial, or mechanic clock -
> both are based on sun time. and the sun is imprecise.
> Then you gots t
> t for time is
> mathematics...
> and numbers don't exist out there.

Hydrogen atoms for example don't have energy levels
without you around to count them?

Jan

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

#665327

Am Mittwoch000030, 30.07.2025 um 22:33 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
> Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>
>> A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which 
>> happens at a known fixed frequency.
>>
>> But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.
> 
> In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
> The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
> So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.
> 
> There is no alternative to this definition.
> 


Time is what makes a clock tick and not the ticks themselves.

Time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

What physicists (or people in general) think or want is totally 
irrelevant for nature.


...

TH

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

#665340

Den 31.07.2025 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Mittwoch000030, 30.07.2025 um 22:33 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>> Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>
>>> A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which 
>>> happens at a known fixed frequency.
>>>
>>> But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.
>>
>> In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
>> The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
>> So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.
>>
>> There is no alternative to this definition.
>>

> 
> 
> Time is what makes a clock tick and not the ticks themselves.
> 
> Time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.
> 
> What physicists (or people in general) think or want is totally 
> irrelevant for nature.
> 

This is not physics!
So why are posting to a physics news group?

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
    a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#665346

Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
> Den 31.07.2025 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> Am Mittwoch000030, 30.07.2025 um 22:33 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>> Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>
>>>> A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which 
>>>> happens at a known fixed frequency.
>>>>
>>>> But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.
>>>
>>> In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
>>> The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
>>> So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.
>>>
>>> There is no alternative to this definition.
>>>
> 
>>
>>
>> Time is what makes a clock tick and not the ticks themselves.
>>
>> Time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.
>>
>> What physicists (or people in general) think or want is totally 
>> irrelevant for nature.
>>
> 
> This is not physics!

Actually I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Why do you think, that time isn't a natural phenomenon?

> So why are posting to a physics news group?
> 
> Please answer the following questions:
> 
> 1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
>     a meaning in _physics_?
> 
> If no, post in another news group.
> 
> If yes:
> 
> 2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we 
measure.

Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices.

E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a 
thermometer.

But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because temperature 
also exists without any measurements.

This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an indicator 
for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.

Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as 
something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices.

That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature doesn't 
take those measurements into consideration.

If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like. But 
don't expect anybody do the same.


TH

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

#665354

Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>
>> Please answer the following questions:
>>
>> 1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
>>     a meaning in _physics_?
>>
>> If no, post in another news group.
>>
>> If yes:
>>
>> 2. What is the instrument that measures time?

> 
> There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we 
> measure.
> 
> Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices.
> 
> E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a 
> thermometer.
> 
> But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because temperature 
> also exists without any measurements.
> 
> This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an indicator 
> for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.
> 
> Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as 
> something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices.
> 
> That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature doesn't 
> take those measurements into consideration.
> 
> If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like. But 
> don't expect anybody do the same.
> 
> 
> TH

Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my 
questions?

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
    a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#665355

On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:31:31 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

>Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>
>>> Please answer the following questions:
>>>
>>> 1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
>>>     a meaning in _physics_?
>>>
>>> If no, post in another news group.
>>>
>>> If yes:
>>>
>>> 2. What is the instrument that measures time?
>
>> 
>> There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we 
>> measure.
>> 
>> Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices.
>> 
>> E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a 
>> thermometer.
>> 
>> But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because temperature 
>> also exists without any measurements.
>> 
>> This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an indicator 
>> for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.
>> 
>> Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as 
>> something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices.
>> 
>> That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature doesn't 
>> take those measurements into consideration.
>> 
>> If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like. But 
>> don't expect anybody do the same.
>> 
>> 
>> TH
>
>Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my 
>questions?
>
>Please answer the following questions:
>
>1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
>    a meaning in _physics_?
>
>If no, post in another news group.
>
>If yes:
>
>2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There are no instruments that exist that measure time. 


What flow of time is it on your watch? 


Is Sunday Sun Day? Every day is Sunday.

What day it it?  It's sunday.

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

#665358

Am Samstag000002, 02.08.2025 um 08:42 schrieb The Starmaker:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:31:31 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen"
> <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
> 
>> Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>>
>>>> Please answer the following questions:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
>>>>      a meaning in _physics_?
>>>>
>>>> If no, post in another news group.
>>>>
>>>> If yes:
>>>>
>>>> 2. What is the instrument that measures time?
>>
>>>
>>> There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we
>>> measure.
>>>
>>> Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices.
>>>
>>> E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a
>>> thermometer.
>>>
>>> But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because temperature
>>> also exists without any measurements.
>>>
>>> This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an indicator
>>> for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.
>>>
>>> Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as
>>> something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices.
>>>
>>> That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature doesn't
>>> take those measurements into consideration.
>>>
>>> If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like. But
>>> don't expect anybody do the same.
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my
>> questions?
>>
>> Please answer the following questions:
>>
>> 1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
>>     a meaning in _physics_?
>>
>> If no, post in another news group.
>>
>> If yes:
>>
>> 2. What is the instrument that measures time?
> 
> There are no instruments that exist that measure time.
> 
> 
> What flow of time is it on your watch?
> 
> 
> Is Sunday Sun Day? Every day is Sunday.
> 
> What day it it?  It's sunday.
> 
> 

Clocks count events of supposedly even frequency.

There are many different types of clocks.

The most simple clock counts only years.
A little more advanced is a calendar, which is used to count days.

But better clocks do exist, which could count much shorter intervals.

But they all have in common, that they are essentially counters, which 
multiply the base frequency with that number and 'compute' some sort of 
human readable time values.

Time is now, what makes these events flow in equal intervals.

That is actually hard to measure, because if time would start to flow 
faster or slower, our clocks wouldn't notice that, because they depend 
on time, however fast time flows.

TH

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

#665356

On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:31:31 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:


>If no, post in another news group.


one should not mistaken arrogance for intelligence. 

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

#665357

Am Freitag000001, 01.08.2025 um 22:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
> Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>
>>> Please answer the following questions:
>>>
>>> 1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
>>>     a meaning in _physics_?
>>>
>>> If no, post in another news group.
>>>
>>> If yes:
>>>
>>> 2. What is the instrument that measures time?
> 
>>
>> There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we 
>> measure.
>>
>> Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices.
>>
>> E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a 
>> thermometer.
>>
>> But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because 
>> temperature also exists without any measurements.
>>
>> This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an 
>> indicator for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.
>>
>> Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as 
>> something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices.
>>
>> That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature 
>> doesn't take those measurements into consideration.
>>
>> If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like. 
>> But don't expect anybody do the same.
>>
>>
>> TH
> 
> Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my 
> questions?
> 
Yes.

I told you already, that any quantity in nature is entirely independent 
of any kind of measurements.

Since physics is a natural science, physics deals with natural 
phenomena, hence also with quantities, which are not measured.

Man made devices like e.g. clocks are not part of nature, hence belong 
to the realm, which deals with man made devices.

This is usually called 'engineering'.

Physics is in a way the foundation of engineering, but not equal in 
methods and objectives.

> Please answer the following questions:

no.

TH

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

#665359

Den 02.08.2025 10:04, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Freitag000001, 01.08.2025 um 22:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>> Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>>
>>>> Please answer the following questions:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
>>>>     a meaning in _physics_?
>>>>
>>>> If no, post in another news group.
>>>>
>>>> If yes:
>>>>
>>>> 2. What is the instrument that measures time?
>>
>>>
>>> There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we 
>>> measure.
>>>
>>> Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices.
>>>
>>> E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a 
>>> thermometer.
>>>
>>> But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because 
>>> temperature also exists without any measurements.
>>>
>>> This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an 
>>> indicator for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.
>>>
>>> Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as 
>>> something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices.
>>>
>>> That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature 
>>> doesn't take those measurements into consideration.
>>>
>>> If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like. 
>>> But don't expect anybody do the same.
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my 
>> questions?
>>

> Yes.
> 
> I told you already, that any quantity in nature is entirely independent 
> of any kind of measurements.
> 
> Since physics is a natural science, physics deals with natural 
> phenomena, hence also with quantities, which are not measured.

So according to you, physics is about natural phenomena which
are not measured.

> 
> Man made devices like e.g. clocks are not part of nature, hence belong 
> to the realm, which deals with man made devices.

And since all measuring instruments are man made,
they have no place in physics?

> 
> This is usually called 'engineering'.

OK, let me reformulate:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
    a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?





-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#665376

Am Samstag000002, 02.08.2025 um 11:36 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
> Den 02.08.2025 10:04, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> Am Freitag000001, 01.08.2025 um 22:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>> Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>> Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>>>
>>>>> Please answer the following questions:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
>>>>>     a meaning in _physics_?
>>>>>
>>>>> If no, post in another news group.
>>>>>
>>>>> If yes:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. What is the instrument that measures time?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we 
>>>> measure.
>>>>
>>>> Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices.
>>>>
>>>> E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a 
>>>> thermometer.
>>>>
>>>> But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because 
>>>> temperature also exists without any measurements.
>>>>
>>>> This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an 
>>>> indicator for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.
>>>>
>>>> Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as 
>>>> something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices.
>>>>
>>>> That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature 
>>>> doesn't take those measurements into consideration.
>>>>
>>>> If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like. 
>>>> But don't expect anybody do the same.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>> Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my 
>>> questions?
>>>
> 
>> Yes.
>>
>> I told you already, that any quantity in nature is entirely 
>> independent of any kind of measurements.
>>
>> Since physics is a natural science, physics deals with natural 
>> phenomena, hence also with quantities, which are not measured.
> 
> So according to you, physics is about natural phenomena which
> are not measured.

No!

You can measure all those quantities, but that is not a requirement.

Many things in nature are not measurable for one reason or the other, 
but do still exist.

Physics deals also with distant stars, for instance, which are too far 
away to measure them.

And, of course, we do not decide about existence by measuring something 
(or not).>>
>> Man made devices like e.g. clocks are not part of nature, hence belong 
>> to the realm, which deals with man made devices.
> 
> And since all measuring instruments are man made,
> they have no place in physics?

No!

Devices belong to a realm, which is not nature. I would prefer to call 
that 'engineering'.

Physicists use all sorts of devices, but would not necessarily build them.

>>
>> This is usually called 'engineering'.
> 
> OK, let me reformulate:
> 
> 1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
>     a meaning in engineering?
> 
> 2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

Physicists use clocks of various forms, technology and size.

But time does not use clocks!

This is so, because time is a natural phenomenon and nature does not use 
any man-made devices.

TH

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web