Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #416894 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-22 11:37 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-04-27 19:12 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 123 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-22 11:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-23 04:35 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-22 22:05 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2017-04-23 14:23 +0200
Re: The Speed of Thought djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-04-23 14:17 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 11:07 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-04-23 16:31 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 23:11 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-04-23 10:14 -0600
Re: The Speed of Thought Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 11:43 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-04-23 20:36 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 19:56 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-04-23 16:24 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-23 12:35 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-23 13:00 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-23 23:38 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-23 21:15 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-23 22:38 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-24 06:02 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-04-24 16:55 +1000
Re: The Speed of Thought Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:09 +0200
Re: The Speed of Thought Lintervallen Ruther <rt@lweaevte.ri> - 2017-04-24 19:37 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-24 09:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-24 10:22 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-04-25 12:03 +1000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-25 00:16 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-04-25 17:42 +1000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:58 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 02:25 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 20:49 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 12:48 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-28 10:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 23:36 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-25 17:18 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-25 21:53 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-25 19:39 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-26 04:36 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-26 18:00 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-27 03:13 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 04:32 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-27 14:46 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 11:29 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-27 16:32 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 13:22 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 02:16 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:43 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 03:39 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:50 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-27 17:21 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 23:16 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 12:59 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 09:55 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-28 10:47 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 23:54 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 02:24 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 23:18 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 12:45 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-28 10:38 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 23:40 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-29 10:47 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 05:05 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-02 12:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-02 21:16 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-03 10:21 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-04 13:29 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 15:10 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-06 11:03 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-08 22:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-09 08:00 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 09:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-11 04:59 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 07:19 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 15:07 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 23:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 15:22 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 08:00 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-08 22:54 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 08:54 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-09 23:23 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 06:03 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 09:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 15:45 -0700
Re: The Speed of Imagination The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-13 10:25 -0700
Re: The Speed of Imagination "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-13 10:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Imagination The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-13 11:45 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-11 12:52 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-10 10:06 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 10:45 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 15:41 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-11 04:49 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-14 12:43 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-14 17:39 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-14 21:51 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-15 05:55 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-15 11:20 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-16 11:24 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-16 10:35 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-16 12:52 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-16 13:08 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-16 16:57 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-16 15:09 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-17 10:03 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-17 10:13 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-16 16:42 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-17 09:53 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-16 16:40 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-17 10:01 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-17 16:07 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:41 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-27 17:20 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 23:15 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 12:57 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-28 10:41 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 23:45 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 04:13 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:53 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 10:07 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2017-04-24 07:48 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-24 20:36 +0200
Re: The Speed of Thought Lintervallen Ruther <rt@lweaevte.ri> - 2017-04-24 21:14 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 07:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 06:05 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-27 19:12 -0700
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 09:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <591342F9.1E3F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #418990 |
Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:22:51 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 12:54:00 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:22:23 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Bill Gates wrote a book...Business at the Speed of Thought. > > > > > > What speed did bill gates have in mind? > > > > > > > > > > I imagine he was referring to rate at which ideas occur, > > > > > > > > > > > > You imagine???? imagine? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > as in "number of ideas per unit time" rather than a distance > > > > > that the idea travels, per unit time. > > > > > > > > More confused ideas! > > > > > > > > > > Yes, you are confused. > > > > > > > > > > > "Thought" has no relation with...Time, unit time...or space for that matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure it does. > > > > > > > > > > > You need to remove this silly idea you have 'time and thought', ... > > > > > > > > > > In any case, that's not how ideas work. > > > > > > > When it comes to the speed of thought, ...time is not in the equation. > > > > > > > > > > That's incorrect. > > > Speed is always given as change in a quantity over time. > > > > > > > > > > > Throw the 't' into the garbage can... > > > > > > It seems I am doing so, currently. > > > > One cannot measure Time. > > > > Sure you can. > > > Surely you heard Einsten said Time is an illusion... > > > > Nope. But if he did, that is a religious viewpoint; not a scientific one. > > > so how can you measure an illusion? > > > > The fact is, Time cannot be measured. > > > > Yes it can. > > > The fact is...Time cannot even be...observed. > > > > I'm experiencing it now. > > > So how do you measure that which is an illusion and is unobservable???? > > > > You don't. But time is neither illusion, nor unobservable. > > > > > My how time flies... > > Human experience and memory > make a poor device for > precise measurement of time. What type of device does one use to measure ...time?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 15:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <591397F6.4931@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #419040 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:22:51 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 12:54:00 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:22:23 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Bill Gates wrote a book...Business at the Speed of Thought. > > > > > > > What speed did bill gates have in mind? > > > > > > > > > > > > I imagine he was referring to rate at which ideas occur, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You imagine???? imagine? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as in "number of ideas per unit time" rather than a distance > > > > > > that the idea travels, per unit time. > > > > > > > > > > More confused ideas! > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, you are confused. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Thought" has no relation with...Time, unit time...or space for that matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure it does. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You need to remove this silly idea you have 'time and thought', ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > In any case, that's not how ideas work. > > > > > > > > > When it comes to the speed of thought, ...time is not in the equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's incorrect. > > > > Speed is always given as change in a quantity over time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Throw the 't' into the garbage can... > > > > > > > > It seems I am doing so, currently. > > > > > > One cannot measure Time. > > > > > > > Sure you can. > > > > > Surely you heard Einsten said Time is an illusion... > > > > > > > Nope. But if he did, that is a religious viewpoint; not a scientific one. > > > > > so how can you measure an illusion? > > > > > > The fact is, Time cannot be measured. > > > > > > > Yes it can. > > > > > The fact is...Time cannot even be...observed. > > > > > > > I'm experiencing it now. > > > > > So how do you measure that which is an illusion and is unobservable???? > > > > > > > You don't. But time is neither illusion, nor unobservable. > > > > > > > > My how time flies... > > > > Human experience and memory > > make a poor device for > > precise measurement of time. > > What type of device does one use to measure ...time? i can actually hear time....it's going Tick Tock, Tick Tock, Tick Tock, Tick Tock...or is it, tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 10:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Speed of Imagination |
| Message-ID | <59174181.3522@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #419040 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:22:51 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 12:54:00 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:22:23 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Bill Gates wrote a book...Business at the Speed of Thought. > > > > > > > What speed did bill gates have in mind? > > > > > > > > > > > > I imagine he was referring to rate at which ideas occur, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You imagine???? imagine? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as in "number of ideas per unit time" rather than a distance > > > > > > that the idea travels, per unit time. > > > > > > > > > > More confused ideas! > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, you are confused. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Thought" has no relation with...Time, unit time...or space for that matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure it does. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You need to remove this silly idea you have 'time and thought', ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > In any case, that's not how ideas work. > > > > > > > > > When it comes to the speed of thought, ...time is not in the equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's incorrect. > > > > Speed is always given as change in a quantity over time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Throw the 't' into the garbage can... > > > > > > > > It seems I am doing so, currently. > > > > > > One cannot measure Time. > > > > > > > Sure you can. > > > > > Surely you heard Einsten said Time is an illusion... > > > > > > > Nope. But if he did, that is a religious viewpoint; not a scientific one. > > > > > so how can you measure an illusion? > > > > > > The fact is, Time cannot be measured. > > > > > > > Yes it can. > > > > > The fact is...Time cannot even be...observed. > > > > > > > I'm experiencing it now. > > > > > So how do you measure that which is an illusion and is unobservable???? > > > > > > > You don't. But time is neither illusion, nor unobservable. > > > > > > > > My how time flies... > > > > Human experience and memory > > make a poor device for > > precise measurement of time. > > What type of device does one use to measure ...time? Of course I ask the question "What type of device does one use to measure ...time?" because I know no such device exist! One cannot measure time...itself. Yous people have all your ideas confused to a point that you simply believe that a simple clock measures Time. Tick tick is not time. One it's a sound. Two, it's just a movement of the big hand moving from A to B. One cannot measure time...itself. You people simply believe in too much garbage! Your garbage is confused... Oops, I'm late, I didn't realize what time it was...i gotta go before i miss the 11:40...what time do you got? I'm probalby already late according to your time...or early...or it's already tomorrow. What type of device does one use to measure ...time? I don't want to measure the movment of a turtle or the big hand of a stopwatch... i want to measure Time...itself! Do you know what I mean by ..."itself"?? Time itself?? The ACTUAL thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 10:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Speed of Imagination |
| Message-ID | <fcbd1353-74d1-45c3-863e-bb4ab4e80993@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419343 |
ScatMaker Scatted <snip scat>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 11:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Speed of Imagination |
| Message-ID | <5917543C.5F45@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #419344 |
David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > ScatMaker Scatted > <snip scat> Look at what i can do without cut-and-paste! 2 + 2 = 4 7x7=49 i'm a fuckin genuiesus!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 12:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5914C106.6A47@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #418990 |
Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:22:51 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 12:54:00 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:22:23 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Bill Gates wrote a book...Business at the Speed of Thought. > > > > > > What speed did bill gates have in mind? > > > > > > > > > > I imagine he was referring to rate at which ideas occur, > > > > > > > > > > > > You imagine???? imagine? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > as in "number of ideas per unit time" rather than a distance > > > > > that the idea travels, per unit time. > > > > > > > > More confused ideas! > > > > > > > > > > Yes, you are confused. > > > > > > > > > > > "Thought" has no relation with...Time, unit time...or space for that matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure it does. > > > > > > > > > > > You need to remove this silly idea you have 'time and thought', ... > > > > > > > > > > In any case, that's not how ideas work. > > > > > > > When it comes to the speed of thought, ...time is not in the equation. > > > > > > > > > > That's incorrect. > > > Speed is always given as change in a quantity over time. > > > > > > > > > > > Throw the 't' into the garbage can... > > > > > > It seems I am doing so, currently. > > > > One cannot measure Time. > > > > Sure you can. > > > Surely you heard Einsten said Time is an illusion... > > > > Nope. But if he did, that is a religious viewpoint; not a scientific one. He wrote: "for us physicists..." What religion are yous physicists??? http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/51905-time-is-an-illusion And Time is *unobservable*...i gotta look at the clock to see what time it is...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 10:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoh6b2m.2u1.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #418960 |
The Starmaker wrote: ----smip---- > One cannot measure Time. One can, howevber, measure duration. > Surely you heard Einsten said Time is an illusion... Is that what he meant when he included time as the fourth dimension in his postulated "space-time" continuum? ----snip---- > The fact is...Time cannot even be...observed. False. > My how time flies... Start your stopwatch, observe the flies crawling along the surface you put them on, stop the stopwatch. Simple, realt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 10:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <591351BD.2A98@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #419013 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > ----smip---- > > > One cannot measure Time. > > One can, howevber, measure duration. > > > Surely you heard Einsten said Time is an illusion... > > Is that what he meant when he included time as the fourth dimension > in his postulated "space-time" continuum? > > ----snip---- > > > The fact is...Time cannot even be...observed. > > False. > > > My how time flies... > > Start your stopwatch, observe the flies crawling along the surface > you put them on, stop the stopwatch. > > Simple, realt. i don't want to measure...flies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 15:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5913972E.2FD6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #419050 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > ----smip---- > > > > > One cannot measure Time. > > > > One can, howevber, measure duration. > > > > > Surely you heard Einsten said Time is an illusion... > > > > Is that what he meant when he included time as the fourth dimension > > in his postulated "space-time" continuum? > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > The fact is...Time cannot even be...observed. > > > > False. > > > > > My how time flies... > > > > Start your stopwatch, observe the flies crawling along the surface > > you put them on, stop the stopwatch. > > > > Simple, realt. > > i don't want to measure...flies. What time is it? It's a quater to three flies...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 04:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoh8csi.v4k.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #419050 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > ----smip---- > > > > > One cannot measure Time. > > > > One can, however, measure duration. > > > > > Surely you heard Einsten said Time is an illusion... > > > > Is that what he meant when he included time as the fourth dimension > > in his postulated "space-time" continuum? > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > The fact is...Time cannot even be...observed. > > > > False. > > > > > My how time flies... > > > > Start your stopwatch, observe the flies crawling along the surface > > you put them on, stop the stopwatch. > > > > Simple, realy. > > i don't want to measure...flies. You didn't ask how to time flies?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 12:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5918B37B.D66@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #419013 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > ----smip---- > > > One cannot measure Time. > > One can, howevber, measure duration. > > > Surely you heard Einsten said Time is an illusion... > > Is that what he meant when he included time as the fourth dimension > in his postulated "space-time" continuum? > > ----snip---- > > > The fact is...Time cannot even be...observed. > > False. > > > My how time flies... > > Start your stopwatch, observe the flies crawling along the surface > you put them on, stop the stopwatch. > > Simple, realt. Using a stopwatch, and observing the flies crawling along the surface..is not measuring Time itself. "From these movements, we infer the passage of time." --According to Newton "infer" is the operative word...it means 'guess'. In other words, yours variable t is garbage. Guess what time it is ...now. You're wrong...your watch is slow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 17:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnohhn4c.i6.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #419442 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > ----smip---- > > > > > One cannot measure Time. > > > > One can, howevber, measure duration. > > > > > Surely you heard Einsten said Time is an illusion... > > > > Is that what he meant when he included time as the fourth dimension > > in his postulated "space-time" continuum? > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > The fact is...Time cannot even be...observed. > > > > False. > > > > > My how time flies... > > > > Start your stopwatch, observe the flies crawling along the surface > > you put them on, stop the stopwatch. > > > > Simple, realt. > > Using a stopwatch, and observing the flies crawling along the > surface..is not measuring Time itself. I didn't say it is, dimwit. It's hiw you time flies. > > "From these movements, we infer the passage of time." > --According to Newton Tou've been told. Time is nor a pgenimenonm it's a boumenon. > "infer" is the operative word...it means 'guess'. Wrong. It means "deduce". And Newton was wrong. Time is like Number: all is the mind of man. You've been told all that before. Pat attention. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 21:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <591933C4.2FE4@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #419455 |
Ned Latham wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > ----smip----
> > >
> > > > One cannot measure Time.
> > >
> > > One can, howevber, measure duration.
> > >
> > > > Surely you heard Einsten said Time is an illusion...
> > >
> > > Is that what he meant when he included time as the fourth dimension
> > > in his postulated "space-time" continuum?
> > >
> > > ----snip----
> > >
> > > > The fact is...Time cannot even be...observed.
> > >
> > > False.
> > >
> > > > My how time flies...
> > >
> > > Start your stopwatch, observe the flies crawling along the surface
> > > you put them on, stop the stopwatch.
> > >
> > > Simple, realt.
> >
> > Using a stopwatch, and observing the flies crawling along the
> > surface..is not measuring Time itself.
>
> I didn't say it is, dimwit. It's hiw you time flies.
> >
> > "From these movements, we infer the passage of time."
> > --According to Newton
>
> Tou've been told. Time is nor a pgenimenonm it's a boumenon.
>
> > "infer" is the operative word...it means 'guess'.
>
> Wrong. It means "deduce".
>
> And Newton was wrong. Time is like Number: all is the mind of man.
>
> You've been told all that before. Pat attention.
>
> ----snip----
3.
to guess; speculate; surmise.
[in-fur]
Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
verb (used with object), inferred, inferring.
1.
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence:
They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2.
(of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a
conclusion; lead to.
3.
to guess; speculate; surmise.
4.
to hint; imply; suggest.
verb (used without object), inferred, inferring.
5.
to draw a conclusion, as by reasoning.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/infer
Guesses and speculation is all your variable t is...
"From these movements, we 'guess' the passage of time."
--According to Newton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 05:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnohj28c.jrh.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #419467 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > ----smip---- > > > > > > > > > One cannot measure Time. > > > > > > > > One can, howevber, measure duration. > > > > > > > > > Surely you heard Einsten said Time is an illusion... > > > > > > > > Is that what he meant when he included time as the fourth dimension > > > > in his postulated "space-time" continuum? > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > The fact is...Time cannot even be...observed. > > > > > > > > False. > > > > > > > > > My how time flies... > > > > > > > > Start your stopwatch, observe the flies crawling along the surface > > > > you put them on, stop the stopwatch. > > > > > > > > Simple, realt. > > > > > > Using a stopwatch, and observing the flies crawling along the > > > surface..is not measuring Time itself. > > > > I didn't say it is, dimwit. It's hiw you time flies. > > > > > > "From these movements, we infer the passage of time." > > > --According to Newton > > > > Tou've been told. Time is nor a pgenimenonm it's a boumenon. > > > > > "infer" is the operative word...it means 'guess'. > > > > Wrong. It means "deduce". > > > > And Newton was wrong. Time is like Number: all in the mind of man. > > > > You've been told all that before. Pay attention. > > 3. > to guess; speculate; surmise. Get back to me when you've learnt something about English usage, nitwit. "Argument" from some subliterate "authority" don't cut it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 11:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5919F188.29DC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #419498 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ----smip---- > > > > > > > > > > > One cannot measure Time. > > > > > > > > > > One can, howevber, measure duration. > > > > > > > > > > > Surely you heard Einsten said Time is an illusion... > > > > > > > > > > Is that what he meant when he included time as the fourth dimension > > > > > in his postulated "space-time" continuum? > > > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > > > The fact is...Time cannot even be...observed. > > > > > > > > > > False. > > > > > > > > > > > My how time flies... > > > > > > > > > > Start your stopwatch, observe the flies crawling along the surface > > > > > you put them on, stop the stopwatch. > > > > > > > > > > Simple, realt. > > > > > > > > Using a stopwatch, and observing the flies crawling along the > > > > surface..is not measuring Time itself. > > > > > > I didn't say it is, dimwit. It's hiw you time flies. > > > > > > > > "From these movements, we infer the passage of time." > > > > --According to Newton > > > > > > Tou've been told. Time is nor a pgenimenonm it's a boumenon. > > > > > > > "infer" is the operative word...it means 'guess'. > > > > > > Wrong. It means "deduce". > > > > > > And Newton was wrong. Time is like Number: all in the mind of man. > > > > > > You've been told all that before. Pay attention. > > > > 3. > > to guess; speculate; surmise. > > Get back to me when you've learnt something about English usage, nitwit. > "Argument" from some subliterate "authority" don't cut it. I looked here and I don't see the meaning being "deduce" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infer I see..."guess"! What country are you from, Kansas????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 11:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnohm9u2.194.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #419548 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ----smip---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > One cannot measure Time. > > > > > > > > > > > > One can, howevber, measure duration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Surely you heard Einsten said Time is an illusion... > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that what he meant when he included time as the fourth dimension > > > > > > in his postulated "space-time" continuum? > > > > > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact is...Time cannot even be...observed. > > > > > > > > > > > > False. > > > > > > > > > > > > > My how time flies... > > > > > > > > > > > > Start your stopwatch, observe the flies crawling along the surface > > > > > > you put them on, stop the stopwatch. > > > > > > > > > > > > Simple, realt. > > > > > > > > > > Using a stopwatch, and observing the flies crawling along the > > > > > surface..is not measuring Time itself. > > > > > > > > I didn't say it is, dimwit. It's hiw you time flies. > > > > > > > > > > "From these movements, we infer the passage of time." > > > > > --According to Newton > > > > > > > > Tou've been told. Time is nor a pgenimenonm it's a boumenon. > > > > > > > > > "infer" is the operative word...it means 'guess'. > > > > > > > > Wrong. It means "deduce". > > > > > > > > And Newton was wrong. Time is like Number: all in the mind of man. > > > > > > > > You've been told all that before. Pay attention. > > > > > > 3. > > > to guess; speculate; surmise. > > > > Get back to me when you've learnt something about English usage, nitwit. > > "Argument" from some subliterate "authority" don't cut it. > > I looked here and I don't see the meaning being "deduce" You do understand that the web is not a good source of accurate information, right? And that thanks to the invidious and virtually ubiquitous influence of Hollywood, it's worse with English than pretty much everything else? > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infer Merriam-Webster is a case in point. It's American, for one thing, and it's far too generous with faddistic usages. Even so. it's definition of "infer" starts of with "1: to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises" IOW, deduce. > I see..."guess"! That's the second definition, you lying maggot. > What country are you from, Kansas???? No. In my country, we speak English. You should try learning it. It's far more exoressive that that confused gabble that came out of Hollywood. You never know, if you understand some of the words you use, you might stop thinking shit. While you're at it, try yo learn some honesty too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 10:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <591B3867.232D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #419653 |
Ned Latham wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----smip----
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One cannot measure Time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One can, howevber, measure duration.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Surely you heard Einsten said Time is an illusion...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is that what he meant when he included time as the fourth dimension
> > > > > > > in his postulated "space-time" continuum?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----snip----
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The fact is...Time cannot even be...observed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > False.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My how time flies...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Start your stopwatch, observe the flies crawling along the surface
> > > > > > > you put them on, stop the stopwatch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Simple, realt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Using a stopwatch, and observing the flies crawling along the
> > > > > > surface..is not measuring Time itself.
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't say it is, dimwit. It's hiw you time flies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "From these movements, we infer the passage of time."
> > > > > > --According to Newton
> > > > >
> > > > > Tou've been told. Time is nor a pgenimenonm it's a boumenon.
> > > > >
> > > > > > "infer" is the operative word...it means 'guess'.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong. It means "deduce".
> > > > >
> > > > > And Newton was wrong. Time is like Number: all in the mind of man.
> > > > >
> > > > > You've been told all that before. Pay attention.
> > > >
> > > > 3.
> > > > to guess; speculate; surmise.
> > >
> > > Get back to me when you've learnt something about English usage, nitwit.
> > > "Argument" from some subliterate "authority" don't cut it.
> >
> > I looked here and I don't see the meaning being "deduce"
>
> You do understand that the web is not a good source of accurate information,
> right? And that thanks to the invidious and virtually ubiquitous influence
> of Hollywood, it's worse with English than pretty much everything else?
>
> > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infer
>
> Merriam-Webster is a case in point. It's American, for one thing,
> and it's far too generous with faddistic usages.
>
> Even so. it's definition of "infer" starts of with
>
> "1: to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises"
>
> IOW, deduce.
>
> > I see..."guess"!
>
> That's the second definition, you lying maggot.
I see fire and I infer there is smoke
your letter … allows me to infer that you are as well as ever — O. W.
Holmes †1935
It means ..."guess"! Which is what the 'scientific community'
specializes in...guesses. Guess what time it is.
Definition of infer
inferred; inferring
transitive verb
1
: to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises
we see smoke and infer fire — L. A. White
— compare imply
2
: guess, surmise
your letter … allows me to infer that you are as well as ever — O.
W. Holmes †1935
3
a : to involve as a normal outcome of thoughtb : to point out :
indicate
this doth infer the zeal I had to see him — William Shakespeare
another survey … infers that two-thirds of all present computer
installations are not paying for themselves — H. R. Chellman
4
: suggest, hint are you inferring I'm incompetent?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 12:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <591B588B.58C5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #419658 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----smip---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One cannot measure Time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can, howevber, measure duration. "duration" is "the length of time"...stupid, one cannot measure Time. you're contradicting yourself... You cannot observe Time, you cannot observe it's length..it's unobservable. You're just guessing... According to this, "deduce" is a very old word hardly used today... https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=7&case_insensitive=on&content=deduce&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cdeduce%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bdeduce%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDeduce%3B%2Cc0 i guess you're a sherlock holmes fan...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 13:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <591B5C30.7BAB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #419666 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----smip---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One cannot measure Time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can, howevber, measure duration. > > "duration" is "the length of time"...stupid, one cannot measure Time. > > you're contradicting yourself... > > You cannot observe Time, you cannot observe it's length..it's unobservable. > > You're just guessing... > > According to this, "deduce" is a very old word hardly used today... > > https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=7&case_insensitive=on&content=deduce&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cdeduce%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bdeduce%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDeduce%3B%2Cc0 > > i guess you're a sherlock holmes fan... and the name Ned is a very old-fashioned name, ... do you have one foot in the grave? I think it's Time to put the other foot in. Your time is up..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 16:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnohmtdg.as1.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #419669 |
The Starmaker wrote: ----snip---- > According to this, "deduce" is a very old word hardly used today... > > https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph? > year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=7& > case_insensitive=on&content=deduce&direct_url=t4%3B%2C > deduce%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bdeduce%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDeduce%3B%2Cc0 So's "according", and it's used even less than "deduce". So what? > i guess you're a sherlock holmes fan... You'd have done better to try deducing something from what I said about Merriam-Webster. (Though there *is* that pesky requirement for intelligebt rationality.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web