Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: The purpose of the Antikythera mechanism Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2018 13:46:10 -0700 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 44 Message-ID: <5B393D92.1041@ix.netcom.com> References: Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com NNTP-Posting-Host: X9ItFNC7Zcz4l6MobL/YRA.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 180701-4, 07/01/2018), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:463193 Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 30.06.2018 um 15:12 schrieb Oren Woodcock: > > >>> > >>>>>> The device has a knob, which could be turned to crank in a certain > >>>>>> constellation of the planets. But who could make use of this? > >>>>>> The possible solution: time travelers would need something similar. > >>>>> > >>>>> entirely bullcrap, what you say inhere. Have you a definition of > >>>>> "time", before you engage in "time travel"?? > >>>> > >>>> Actually I have. But what has 'definition of time' to do with > >>>> 'Antikythera mechanism'? The idea was, that some sort of time-traveler > >>>> had such a machine with him. > >>> > >>> How can you travel in time, once you don't define that time, you say > >>> are capable to travel through. You have to come up with a MECHANISM, > >>> not poetry. > >> > >> Well, ok... > >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > > > Woe, you decay to links. I see no mechanism. > > > > This is a link to my 'book' about a theory, which I have developed. It > is called 'structured spacetime'. > > The model would allow many timelines, hence would allow some sort of > timetravel (at least in principle). > > 'mechanism' is apparently meant in connection to 'time-machine'. > > But I have not built such a device, nor planning to do so. > > BTW: physics is science and engineering is not. > > Building a time-machine would belong to engineering. > > TH Isn't time a machine?