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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #462612 > unrolled thread

sci.physics.relativity

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

Contents

  sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-25 13:29 -0700
    Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-26 00:17 -0700
      Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-26 09:54 -0700
        Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-26 23:59 -0700
          Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-28 10:52 -0700
            Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-28 11:46 -0700
              Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-29 10:51 -0700
                Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-03 09:18 -0700
        Re: sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 10:42 -0700
          Re: sci.physics.relativity Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-06-29 15:43 +0000
        Re: sci.physics.relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 14:29 -0700
          Re: sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 15:11 -0700
      Re: sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 10:40 -0700
        Re: sci.physics.relativity Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-06-29 15:49 +0000
          Re: sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 11:55 -0700
            Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-03 13:41 -0700
              Re: sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 14:44 -0700
                Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-04 17:42 -0700
                  Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-04 17:44 -0700
    Re: sci.physics.relativity SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-06-27 02:03 +1000
      Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-26 19:29 +0200
        Re: sci.physics.relativity SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-06-27 21:23 +1000
          Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-27 15:22 +0200
            Re: sci.physics.relativity SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-06-28 05:10 +1000
            Re: sci.physics.relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-28 09:09 -0500
              Re: sci.physics.relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-28 11:36 -0700
                Re: sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 12:36 -0700
                  Re: sci.physics.relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-28 16:55 -0700
                    Re: sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 10:52 -0700
                      Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-30 12:49 -0700
                        Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-30 21:53 -0700
                        Re: sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 19:05 -0700
                          Re: sci.physics.relativity Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-03 06:44 +0000
                            Re: sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 08:43 -0700
                          Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-02 23:53 -0700
                            Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-03 13:47 -0700
                              Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-03 14:46 -0700
                                Re: sci.physics.relativity mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-03 15:47 -0700
                                Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-04 17:52 -0700
                                  Re: sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-05 12:07 -0700
                      Re: sci.physics.relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-30 15:01 -0700
                        Re: sci.physics.relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 22:06 +0000
              Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-28 11:08 +0200
                Re: sci.physics.relativity SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au> - 2018-06-29 12:18 +1000
                  Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-30 18:49 +0200
                    Re: sci.physics.relativity SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-07-01 13:05 +1000
                      Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-03 01:02 +0200
                Re: sci.physics.relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-29 10:11 -0500
                  Re: sci.physics.relativity Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-06-29 15:55 +0000
                  Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-30 19:14 +0200
                    Re: sci.physics.relativity SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-07-10 11:32 +1000
                      Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-10 20:48 +0200
                        Re: sci.physics.relativity Ování Bodrého <urh@nwroen.ol> - 2018-07-11 10:54 +0000
                          Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-12 05:00 +0200
                            Re: sci.physics.relativity SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-07-12 20:30 +1000
                              Re: sci.physics.relativity Olin Hayton <toa@nahslao.nh> - 2018-07-12 11:00 +0000
                                Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-12 18:31 +0200
                              Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-12 18:29 +0200
                                Re: sci.physics.relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-12 09:39 -0700
                            Re: sci.physics.relativity Olin Hayton <toa@nahslao.nh> - 2018-07-12 10:58 +0000
                              Re: sci.physics.relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-12 18:34 +0200
              Re: sci.physics.relativity SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au> - 2018-06-29 12:02 +1000

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#462690

SolomonW wrote:
> Contrary to what many say here there is no such thing as absolute space or
> time in Newtonian physics, 

Yes, there is.  He explicitly writes about it.  For Newton, there is only
one measure of space and only one measure of time, that applies to all
observers.

> these are measured from some arbitrary point.

Non sequitur.  You have misunderstood what the relativity of space and time
in Einstein’s/the theories of relativity means.  You should READ Newton, in
particular where he writes about space and time, before you make such
claims.  You will find it impossible to substantiate your claims.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics#Newton's_physics:_linear_time>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#462769

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 19:29:19 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> SolomonW wrote:
>> Contrary to what many say here there is no such thing as absolute space or
>> time in Newtonian physics, 
> 
> Yes, there is.  He explicitly writes about it.  For Newton, there is only
> one measure of space and only one measure of time, that applies to all
> observers.
> 
>> these are measured from some arbitrary point.
> 
> Non sequitur.  You have misunderstood what the relativity of space and time
> in Einstein’s/the theories of relativity means.  You should READ Newton, in
> particular where he writes about space and time, before you make such
> claims.  You will find it impossible to substantiate your claims.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics#Newton's_physics:_linear_time>

You are going on a tangent. Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the
same thing.

Here have a read of this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_space_and_time

To make Newtonian physics to work you need to have some arbitrary point to
measure from, think about an object which is measured with x, y, z
directions at a time of t. All these measurements are from some arbitrary
point and time.

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

#462770

SolomonW wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 19:29:19 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> SolomonW wrote:
>>> these are measured from some arbitrary point.
>> Non sequitur.  You have misunderstood what the relativity of space and time
>> in Einstein’s/the theories of relativity means.  You should READ Newton, in
>> particular where he writes about space and time, before you make such
>> claims.  You will find it impossible to substantiate your claims.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics#Newton's_physics:_linear_time>
> 
> You are going on a tangent.

Not at all.  But you are committing this fallacy:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts>

> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.

First of all, that is nonsense.

Second, previsouly you have talked about what Newton presumably said.
After it has been pointed out to you that he did not say what you claimed
he did, you are arguing with a (false) notion of “Newtonian physics”.
That is a fallacy.

> Here have a read of this
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_space_and_time
> 
> To make Newtonian physics to work you need to have some arbitrary point to
> measure from, think about an object which is measured with x, y, z
> directions at a time of t. All these measurements are from some arbitrary
> point and time.

Once again: You do not understand what “relativity of space and time” in
“theories of relativity” means.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#462785

On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 15:22:59 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> SolomonW wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 19:29:19 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> SolomonW wrote:
>>>> these are measured from some arbitrary point.
>>> Non sequitur.  You have misunderstood what the relativity of space and time
>>> in Einstein’s/the theories of relativity means.  You should READ Newton, in
>>> particular where he writes about space and time, before you make such
>>> claims.  You will find it impossible to substantiate your claims.
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics#Newton's_physics:_linear_time>
>> 
>> You are going on a tangent.
> 
> Not at all.  But you are committing this fallacy:
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts>
> 
>> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
> 
> First of all, that is nonsense.
> 
> Second, previsouly you have talked about what Newton presumably said.
> After it has been pointed out to you that he did not say what you claimed
> he did, you are arguing with a (false) notion of “Newtonian physics”.
> That is a fallacy.
> 
>> Here have a read of this
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_space_and_time
>> 
>> To make Newtonian physics to work you need to have some arbitrary point to
>> measure from, think about an object which is measured with x, y, z
>> directions at a time of t. All these measurements are from some arbitrary
>> point and time.
> 
> Once again: You do not understand what “relativity of space and time” in
> “theories of relativity” means.

whatever.

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

#462840

On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> SolomonW wrote:
>> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
> 
> First of all, that is nonsense.

No, it is true, fundamentally.

Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that 
absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian 
laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single 
"absolute" frame).

So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time" 
have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they 
are just words with no impact.

>> To make Newtonian physics to work you need to have some arbitrary point to
>> measure from, think about an object which is measured with x, y, z
>> directions at a time of t. All these measurements are from some arbitrary
>> point and time.

It actually requires considerably more: an inertial coordinate system. 
Just a single point is woefully inadequate.

> Once again: You do not understand what “relativity of space and time” in
> “theories of relativity” means.

You are lumping together incommensurate theories -- the concepts of 
space and time are CONSIDERABLY different among Newtonian physics, SR, 
and GR. But all can be classified as "theories of relativity" -- that 
phrase is essentially useless.

Tom Roberts

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

#462872

On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:09:22 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > SolomonW wrote:
> >> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
> > 
> > First of all, that is nonsense.
> 
> No, it is true, fundamentally.
> 
> Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that 
> absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian 
> laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single 
> "absolute" frame).
> 
> So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time" 
> have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they 
> are just words with no impact.

That’s not truth. Absolute time is use to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock by redefining the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the redefined GPS second and the standard ground clock second contain the same amount of absolute time. This makes the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard ground clock second in terms of absolute time and thus making them permanently in synch in terms of absolute time. 

> 
> >> To make Newtonian physics to work you need to have some arbitrary point to
> >> measure from, think about an object which is measured with x, y, z
> >> directions at a time of t. All these measurements are from some arbitrary
> >> point and time.
> 
> It actually requires considerably more: an inertial coordinate system. 
> Just a single point is woefully inadequate.
> 
> > Once again: You do not understand what “relativity of space and time” in
> > “theories of relativity” means.
> 
> You are lumping together incommensurate theories -- the concepts of 
> space and time are CONSIDERABLY different among Newtonian physics, SR, 
> and GR. But all can be classified as "theories of relativity" -- that 
> phrase is essentially useless.
> 
> Tom Roberts

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

#462880

On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:09:22 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > SolomonW wrote:
> > >> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
> > > 
> > > First of all, that is nonsense.
> > 
> > No, it is true, fundamentally.
> > 
> > Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that 
> > absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian 
> > laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single 
> > "absolute" frame).
> > 
> > So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time" 
> > have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they 
> > are just words with no impact.
> 
> That’s not truth. Absolute time is use to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock by redefining the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. [etc. etc.]

Absolute time is not used anywhere in physics today. You probably meant
some kind of "time by convention".

--
Jan

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

#462905

On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:09:22 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > SolomonW wrote:
> > > >> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
> > > > 
> > > > First of all, that is nonsense.
> > > 
> > > No, it is true, fundamentally.
> > > 
> > > Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that 
> > > absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian 
> > > laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single 
> > > "absolute" frame).
> > > 
> > > So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time" 
> > > have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they 
> > > are just words with no impact.
> > 
> > That’s not truth. Absolute time is use to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock by redefining the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. [etc. etc.]
> 
> Absolute time is not used anywhere in physics today. You probably meant
> some kind of "time by convention".
> 

Assertion is not a valid argument. Perhaps you think that a clock second is an absolute interval of absolute time....it is not. The SR math says that the observer’s clock second represents a specific interval of absolute time and this interval of absolute time is represented by 1/gamma second on  a clock moving wrt the observer. You need to learn the true nature of time instead of burying your head in the SR sands.

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

#463083

On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:09:22 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > > SolomonW wrote:
> > > > >> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
> > > > > 
> > > > > First of all, that is nonsense.
> > > > 
> > > > No, it is true, fundamentally.
> > > > 
> > > > Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that 
> > > > absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian 
> > > > laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single 
> > > > "absolute" frame).
> > > > 
> > > > So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time" 
> > > > have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they 
> > > > are just words with no impact.
> > > 
> > > That’s not truth. Absolute time is use to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock by redefining the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. [etc. etc.]
> > 
> > Absolute time is not used anywhere in physics today. You probably meant
> > some kind of "time by convention".
> > 
> 
> Assertion is not a valid argument.

Regardless, I _assert_, based on my expertise in the field, that absolute
time is NOT used anywhere in physics today.

That's how it is, end of story.

--
Jan

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

#463093

JanPB wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:09:22 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > > On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > > > SolomonW wrote:
> > > > > >> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First of all, that is nonsense.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it is true, fundamentally.
> > > > >
> > > > > Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that
> > > > > absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian
> > > > > laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single
> > > > > "absolute" frame).
> > > > >
> > > > > So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time"
> > > > > have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they
> > > > > are just words with no impact.
> > > >
> > > > That’s not truth. Absolute time is use to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock by redefining the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. [etc. etc.]
> > >
> > > Absolute time is not used anywhere in physics today. You probably meant
> > > some kind of "time by convention".
> > >
> >
> > Assertion is not a valid argument.
> 
> Regardless, I _assert_, based on my expertise in the field, that absolute
> time is NOT used anywhere in physics today.
> 
> That's how it is, end of story.
> 
> --
> Jan


Not end of story...yous people are simply afraid of 'absolute time' because yous simply don't understand it.


And that which yous don't understand...yous fear.

Absolute time is simply eternal time that has been 'divided'...


Now, do you understand...time divided? Now try...undivided time.


It is time that simply travels by itself, independent of...you. What time is it now?

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

#463142

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> JanPB wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:09:22 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > > > On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > > > > SolomonW wrote:
> > > > > > >> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > First of all, that is nonsense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, it is true, fundamentally.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that
> > > > > > absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian
> > > > > > laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single
> > > > > > "absolute" frame).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time"
> > > > > > have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they
> > > > > > are just words with no impact.
> > > > >
> > > > > That’s not truth. Absolute time is use to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock by redefining the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. [etc. etc.]
> > > >
> > > > Absolute time is not used anywhere in physics today. You probably meant
> > > > some kind of "time by convention".
> > > >
> > >
> > > Assertion is not a valid argument.
> >
> > Regardless, I _assert_, based on my expertise in the field, that absolute
> > time is NOT used anywhere in physics today.
> >
> > That's how it is, end of story.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> Not end of story...yous people are simply afraid of 'absolute time' because yous simply don't understand it.
> 
> And that which yous don't understand...yous fear.
> 
> Absolute time is simply eternal time that has been 'divided'...
> 
> Now, do you understand...time divided? Now try...undivided time.
> 
> It is time that simply travels by itself, independent of...you. What time is it now?


Take a sundial, remove the sun...that's absolute time.

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

#463313

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 12:48:36 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> > 
> > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:09:22 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > > > On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > > > > SolomonW wrote:
> > > > > > >> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > First of all, that is nonsense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, it is true, fundamentally.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that
> > > > > > absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian
> > > > > > laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single
> > > > > > "absolute" frame).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time"
> > > > > > have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they
> > > > > > are just words with no impact.
> > > > >
> > > > > That’s not truth. Absolute time is use to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock by redefining the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. [etc. etc.]
> > > >
> > > > Absolute time is not used anywhere in physics today. You probably meant
> > > > some kind of "time by convention".
> > > >
> > >
> > > Assertion is not a valid argument.
> > 
> > Regardless, I _assert_, based on my expertise in the field, that absolute
> > time is NOT used anywhere in physics today.
> > 
> > That's how it is, end of story.
> > 
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> 
> Not end of story...yous people are simply afraid of 'absolute time' because yous simply don't understand it.

Nonsense.

--
Jan

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

#463319

JanPB wrote:

>> Not end of story...yous people are simply afraid of 'absolute time'
>> because yous simply don't understand it.
> 
> Nonsense.

You are quoting that big, once your glossary is terribly restricted. 
Nothing beyond "gobbledygook" and the above.

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

#463344

On Monday, July 2, 2018 at 11:44:31 PM UTC-7, Oren Woodcock wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> >> Not end of story...yous people are simply afraid of 'absolute time'
> >> because yous simply don't understand it.
> > 
> > Nonsense.
> 
> You are quoting that big, once your glossary is terribly restricted. 
> Nothing beyond "gobbledygook" and the above.

There is nothing else one can say in response (except typing in a 2-year physics course
which is of course unrealistic, and even THAT would be entirely lost on those who would need
it most).

Such is the paradox of ignorance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect 

--
Jan

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

#463320

JanPB wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 12:48:36 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > JanPB wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:09:22 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > > > > On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > > > > > SolomonW wrote:
> > > > > > > >> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > First of all, that is nonsense.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, it is true, fundamentally.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that
> > > > > > > absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian
> > > > > > > laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single
> > > > > > > "absolute" frame).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time"
> > > > > > > have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they
> > > > > > > are just words with no impact.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That’s not truth. Absolute time is use to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock by redefining the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. [etc. etc.]
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolute time is not used anywhere in physics today. You probably meant
> > > > > some kind of "time by convention".
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Assertion is not a valid argument.
> > >
> > > Regardless, I _assert_, based on my expertise in the field, that absolute
> > > time is NOT used anywhere in physics today.
> > >
> > > That's how it is, end of story.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> >
> >
> > Not end of story...yous people are simply afraid of 'absolute time' because yous simply don't understand it.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> --
> Jan



'The more things change, the more they remain the same.'

 


Aristole - The more things change...


Newton - the more they remain the same.

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

#463366

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> JanPB wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 12:48:36 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > JanPB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:09:22 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > SolomonW wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > First of all, that is nonsense.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, it is true, fundamentally.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that
> > > > > > > > absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian
> > > > > > > > laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single
> > > > > > > > "absolute" frame).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time"
> > > > > > > > have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they
> > > > > > > > are just words with no impact.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That’s not truth. Absolute time is use to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock by redefining the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. [etc. etc.]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Absolute time is not used anywhere in physics today. You probably meant
> > > > > > some kind of "time by convention".
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Assertion is not a valid argument.
> > > >
> > > > Regardless, I _assert_, based on my expertise in the field, that absolute
> > > > time is NOT used anywhere in physics today.
> > > >
> > > > That's how it is, end of story.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > >
> > > Not end of story...yous people are simply afraid of 'absolute time' because yous simply don't understand it.
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> 'The more things change, the more they remain the same.'
> 
> 
> 
> Aristole - The more things change...
> 
> Newton - the more they remain the same.


(i knows yous people don't understand short sentences...)

Aristole believed Time is change...

and Newton believed Time flows without change.


'absolute time' is time independent of change...


So, you guys went with Aristole cause yous don't understand Newton time.

i get it, skool is hard when you get passing grades without showing up in skool.


they colleges lowered the IQ standards...and that's how you got in.


Yous got the iq of a chair and dat is why there are so many chairs in skool...

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

#463371

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > JanPB wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 12:48:36 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > JanPB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:09:22 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > SolomonW wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > First of all, that is nonsense.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No, it is true, fundamentally.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that
> > > > > > > > > absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian
> > > > > > > > > laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single
> > > > > > > > > "absolute" frame).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time"
> > > > > > > > > have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they
> > > > > > > > > are just words with no impact.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That’s not truth. Absolute time is use to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock by redefining the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. [etc. etc.]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Absolute time is not used anywhere in physics today. You probably meant
> > > > > > > some kind of "time by convention".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Assertion is not a valid argument.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regardless, I _assert_, based on my expertise in the field, that absolute
> > > > > time is NOT used anywhere in physics today.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's how it is, end of story.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not end of story...yous people are simply afraid of 'absolute time' because yous simply don't understand it.
> > >
> > > Nonsense.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> >
> > 'The more things change, the more they remain the same.'
> >
> >
> >
> > Aristole - The more things change...
> >
> > Newton - the more they remain the same.
> 
> (i knows yous people don't understand short sentences...)
> 
> Aristole believed Time is change...
> 
> and Newton believed Time flows without change.
> 
> 'absolute time' is time independent of change...
> 
> So, you guys went with Aristole cause yous don't understand Newton time.



In other words, my dear relativity experts, Relativity is.. 'imprecise time'.

Aristole time is imprecise time..

Newton's time is precise time.


Everyone knows...precise time (absolute time) is NOT used anywhere in physics today according to..Jan.


I guess it is much easier using clocks that have the imprecise time on it...(always coming up with  a better clock)


Einstein's relativity Time might be a little off here and there, right? "I'll catch that train, I'm only a minute late..."

It doesn't matter...it's relative.

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

#463380

On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 2:46:34 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > 
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > JanPB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 12:48:36 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > JanPB wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:09:22 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > SolomonW wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > First of all, that is nonsense.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No, it is true, fundamentally.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that
> > > > > > > > > > absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian
> > > > > > > > > > laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single
> > > > > > > > > > "absolute" frame).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time"
> > > > > > > > > > have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they
> > > > > > > > > > are just words with no impact.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That’s not truth. Absolute time is use to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock by redefining the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. [etc. etc.]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Absolute time is not used anywhere in physics today. You probably meant
> > > > > > > > some kind of "time by convention".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Assertion is not a valid argument.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regardless, I _assert_, based on my expertise in the field, that absolute
> > > > > > time is NOT used anywhere in physics today.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's how it is, end of story.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not end of story...yous people are simply afraid of 'absolute time' because yous simply don't understand it.

Absolute time is simply the mathematical starting point  as maximum rate for
light and atom...
Gravity strength and also the speed for the atom slows light's and atom's rate.


> > > >
> > > > Nonsense.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > 'The more things change, the more they remain the same.'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Aristole - The more things change...
> > >
> > > Newton - the more they remain the same.
> > 
> > (i knows yous people don't understand short sentences...)
> > 
> > Aristole believed Time is change...
> > 
> > and Newton believed Time flows without change.

Gravity strength mathematically slows rate for time's order...
Speed of material slows rate the same.

Mitchell Raemsch

> > 
> > 'absolute time' is time independent of change...
> > 
> > So, you guys went with Aristole cause yous don't understand Newton time.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, my dear relativity experts, Relativity is.. 'imprecise time'.
> 
> Aristole time is imprecise time..
> 
> Newton's time is precise time.
> 
> 
> Everyone knows...precise time (absolute time) is NOT used anywhere in physics today according to..Jan.
> 
> 
> I guess it is much easier using clocks that have the imprecise time on it...(always coming up with  a better clock)
> 
> 
> Einstein's relativity Time might be a little off here and there, right? "I'll catch that train, I'm only a minute late..."
> 
> It doesn't matter...it's relative.

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

#463457

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > JanPB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 12:48:36 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > JanPB wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:09:22 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > SolomonW wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > First of all, that is nonsense.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No, it is true, fundamentally.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that
> > > > > > > > > > absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian
> > > > > > > > > > laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single
> > > > > > > > > > "absolute" frame).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time"
> > > > > > > > > > have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they
> > > > > > > > > > are just words with no impact.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That’s not truth. Absolute time is use to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock by redefining the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. [etc. etc.]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Absolute time is not used anywhere in physics today. You probably meant
> > > > > > > > some kind of "time by convention".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Assertion is not a valid argument.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regardless, I _assert_, based on my expertise in the field, that absolute
> > > > > > time is NOT used anywhere in physics today.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's how it is, end of story.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not end of story...yous people are simply afraid of 'absolute time' because yous simply don't understand it.
> > > >
> > > > Nonsense.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > 'The more things change, the more they remain the same.'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Aristole - The more things change...
> > >
> > > Newton - the more they remain the same.
> >
> > (i knows yous people don't understand short sentences...)
> >
> > Aristole believed Time is change...
> >
> > and Newton believed Time flows without change.
> >
> > 'absolute time' is time independent of change...
> >
> > So, you guys went with Aristole cause yous don't understand Newton time.
> 
> In other words, my dear relativity experts, Relativity is.. 'imprecise time'.
> 
> Aristole time is imprecise time..
> 
> Newton's time is precise time.
> 
> Everyone knows...precise time (absolute time) is NOT used anywhere in physics today according to..Jan.
> 
> I guess it is much easier using clocks that have the imprecise time on it...(always coming up with  a better clock)
> 
> Einstein's relativity Time might be a little off here and there, right? "I'll catch that train, I'm only a minute late..."
> 
> It doesn't matter...it's relative.


(trains used to be puposely a few minuts late because everyone had
imprecise time...)

Einstein discovered this 'imprecise time' so he invented ...relativity. 


cause, not matter what time you think it is...it's wrong. 

I heard they are coming up with a new atmoic clock...it suppose to have
better imprecise time.

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

#463539

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > JanPB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 12:48:36 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > JanPB wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:09:22 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 6/27/18 8:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > SolomonW wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Newton and Newtonian physics are not quite the same thing.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > First of all, that is nonsense.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No, it is true, fundamentally.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Newton thought that space and time are "absolute". Today, we know that
> > > > > > > > > > > absolute space and time are irrelevant, because all of the Newtonian
> > > > > > > > > > > laws of physics are valid in any inertial frame (not just a single
> > > > > > > > > > > "absolute" frame).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So for the past century (at least), Newton's "absolute space and time"
> > > > > > > > > > > have had no effect on any modeling using Newtonian physics. IOW: they
> > > > > > > > > > > are just words with no impact.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That’s not truth. Absolute time is use to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock by redefining the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. [etc. etc.]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Absolute time is not used anywhere in physics today. You probably meant
> > > > > > > > > some kind of "time by convention".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Assertion is not a valid argument.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regardless, I _assert_, based on my expertise in the field, that absolute
> > > > > > > time is NOT used anywhere in physics today.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's how it is, end of story.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Jan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not end of story...yous people are simply afraid of 'absolute time' because yous simply don't understand it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nonsense.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > 'The more things change, the more they remain the same.'
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Aristole - The more things change...
> > > >
> > > > Newton - the more they remain the same.
> > >
> > > (i knows yous people don't understand short sentences...)
> > >
> > > Aristole believed Time is change...
> > >
> > > and Newton believed Time flows without change.
> > >
> > > 'absolute time' is time independent of change...
> > >
> > > So, you guys went with Aristole cause yous don't understand Newton time.
> >
> > In other words, my dear relativity experts, Relativity is.. 'imprecise time'.
> >
> > Aristole time is imprecise time..
> >
> > Newton's time is precise time.
> >
> > Everyone knows...precise time (absolute time) is NOT used anywhere in physics today according to..Jan.
> >
> > I guess it is much easier using clocks that have the imprecise time on it...(always coming up with  a better clock)
> >
> > Einstein's relativity Time might be a little off here and there, right? "I'll catch that train, I'm only a minute late..."
> >
> > It doesn't matter...it's relative.
> 
> (trains used to be puposely a few minuts late because everyone had
> imprecise time...)
> 
> Einstein discovered this 'imprecise time' so he invented ...relativity.
> 
> cause, not matter what time you think it is...it's wrong.
> 
> I heard they are coming up with a new atmoic clock...it suppose to have
> better imprecise time.



but hey, if you understand relativity..you know that it's impossible to
come up with the precise time.

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web