Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #671465 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-07-17 13:36 +0200 |
| Last post | 2026-07-23 21:16 +0000 |
| Articles | 5 on this page of 65 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
How is time really organized Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-07-17 13:36 +0200
Re: How is time really organized Natividad Ślusarski <rsi@val.pl> - 2026-07-17 12:10 +0000
Re: How is time really organized Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-07-18 00:40 +0200
Re: How is time really organized Cale Balabuha <eah@baal.ru> - 2026-07-17 23:04 +0000
Re: How is time really organized Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-07-18 06:34 +0200
Re: How is time really organized "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-07-19 10:44 +0200
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-07-19 15:55 -0700
Re: How is time really organized Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-07-20 06:18 +0200
Re: How is time really organized Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-07-20 07:39 +0200
Re: How is time really organized Ivo Balakirev <vaovb@kkrea.ru> - 2026-07-20 10:12 +0000
Re: How is time really organized Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-07-22 08:36 +0200
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-07-20 10:44 -0700
Re: How is time really organized Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-07-23 07:26 +0200
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-07-23 09:26 -0700
Re: How is time really organized Fayv Bakharev <kerv@aaaah.ru> - 2026-07-23 18:10 +0000
Re: How is time really organized Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-23 15:16 -0700
Re: How is time really organized Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-07-20 07:37 +0200
Re: How is time really organized Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-07-20 08:28 +0200
Re: How is time really organized Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-07-22 08:28 +0200
Re: How is time really organized Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-07-22 09:41 +0200
Re: How is time really organized Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-07-23 07:33 +0200
Re: How is time really organized Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-07-23 07:52 +0200
Re: How is time really organized "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-07-20 13:13 +0200
Re: How is time really organized Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-07-20 17:21 +0200
Re: How is time really organized "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-07-22 20:44 +0200
Re: How is time really organized Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-07-22 22:14 +0200
Re: How is time really organized "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-07-23 13:56 +0200
Re: How is time really organized Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-07-23 14:45 +0200
Re: How is time really organized "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-07-24 12:02 +0200
Re: How is time really organized Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-07-24 12:41 +0200
Re: How is time really organized Barton Valetov <btaovl@lln.ru> - 2026-07-23 12:54 +0000
Re: How is time really organized Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-07-23 15:54 +0200
Re: How is time really organized Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-23 08:31 -0700
Re: How is time really organized Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-07-22 08:41 +0200
Re: How is time really organized "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-07-22 20:59 +0200
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-07-22 15:48 -0700
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-07-22 15:05 -0700
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-07-22 15:16 -0700
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-07-24 11:26 -0700
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-07-24 11:42 -0700
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-07-24 21:14 -0700
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-07-24 23:05 -0700
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-07-25 11:29 -0700
Re: How is time really organized Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-07-26 09:12 +0200
Re: How is time really organized Vidal Bahovtsev <tald@lb.ru> - 2026-07-26 13:33 +0000
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-07-26 21:00 -0700
Re: How is time really organized Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-07-29 07:12 +0200
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-07-28 23:14 -0700
Re: How is time really organized Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-07-30 06:24 +0200
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-03 01:03 -0700
Re: How is time really organized Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-05 07:19 +0200
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-06 16:39 -0700
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-06 22:49 -0700
Re: How is time really organized Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-07 19:06 +0200
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-07 15:44 -0700
Re: How is time really organized Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-08 08:13 +0200
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-07 23:46 -0700
Re: How is time really organized Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-09 09:46 +0200
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-09 01:12 -0700
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-09 10:26 -0700
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-09 11:23 -0700
Re: How is time really organized Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-07 19:05 +0200
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-07-27 12:05 -0700
Re: How is time really organized The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-07-22 15:21 -0700
Re: How is time really organized Dolph Bazulev <vblpb@vuu.ru> - 2026-07-23 21:16 +0000
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-09 11:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6A78C5B0.2769@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #671919 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > Am Samstag000008, 08.08.2026 um 08:46 schrieb The Starmaker: > > > > Thomas Heger wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Am Samstag000008, 08.08.2026 um 00:44 schrieb The Starmaker: > > > >>> Thomas Heger wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 07:49 schrieb The Starmaker: > > > >>>>> The Starmaker wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 10:03 schrieb The Starmaker: > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 06:24:14 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch000029, 29.07.2026 um 08:14 schrieb The Starmaker: > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Am Montag000027, 27.07.2026 um 06:00 schrieb The Starmaker: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag000025, 25.07.2026 um 08:05 schrieb The Starmaker: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Natividad ÃÆ’…Å¡lusarski wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej WoÃÆ’…ºniak wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is time. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past. Time is something completely else. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp". > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not carry labels or calendars. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time called 'now'. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere else. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TH > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was over here, and now I'm over here. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, here is the REAL here and Now... > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is here is here.. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now is very very far away apart from here. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now is everywhere > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is right here. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remove the letter 'W' > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There?? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remove the letter 'T' > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's all Here! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about Now? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now is like...WOW! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over there! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's now now. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over here it is the same now as over there. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over there! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's now now. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it now? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The time now is...NOW! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it now? Yes. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The time is Now! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everywhere!! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem of course is...where does Here begin? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here or over there? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over here. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What time is it now at the edge of the universe? Of course, it's Now. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The hypersheet of the present is actually invisible, because we need > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> light so see something and that needs time to travel. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, in effect we can't see the hypersheet of the present, but see along > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> our own past-light-cone. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT cone HAS borders, because the past begins at the (alleged) big-bang. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So: no, the time at the borders of what you call 'universe' (which is > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> actually your own past light cone) is, of course, not 'now'! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> It would require to define the 'hypersheet of the present' and show, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that THAT would have borders. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But, unfortunately, you cannot know whether or not it has borders, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> because you can't see in that direction. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> TH > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ... > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The "cone" is incorrect and misinformation/madeup information. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Before the big bang (proto-universe), Time had no seconds no years. It > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> was eternal time. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The big bang created time in...seconds. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a big fan of 'big-bang theory' and personally think, this theory > > > >>>>>>>>>>> is garbage. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I use the term "the big bang" because you guys don't like the word > > > >>>>>>>>>> "created" either. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think, that 'the universe' isn't universe at all, but what we call > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 'universe' is actually our own past light cone. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> That 'universe' is also 'stacked in time', what would make the entire > > > >>>>>>>>>>> picture unreal. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> What we see in the night sky does not refelct some sort of reality, but > > > >>>>>>>>>>> is composed of pictures from the past, which have different ages. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I believe one can invent a camera that takes pictures of the past, like > > > >>>>>>>>>> 10 hours agao, or two days ago..which can be used to idenify a 'crime > > > >>>>>>>>>> scene' > > > >>>>>>>>>> as it took place then. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It is very difficult, to artificially correct this error, because the > > > >>>>>>>>>>> universe is so large. And to know what is happening now in -say- 1 > > > >>>>>>>>>>> billion light years distance would require to wait for 1 billion years > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (what we can't). > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> You can make a phone call with a quantum phone that the signal jumps > > > >>>>>>>>>> a billion light years away, and when the phone rings, and somebody picks > > > >>>>>>>>>> up their phone a billion light years away...You say, "I'm calling from > > > >>>>>>>>>> Earth." > > > >>>>>>>>>> and they will say..."How did you get this number?" > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Possibly... > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> But usual cosmology doesn't use 'quantum phones'. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Instead cosmologists peep through telescopes and gace at distant stars > > > >>>>>>>>> and galaxies. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> What is seen in a telescope isn't real and never was and never will be, > > > >>>>>>>>> because the picture is 'layered in time'. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> To see the content of the real 'hypersheet of the present' isn't easy, > > > >>>>>>>>> because you can't do that with light. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Possibly there exist other means, which allow to see into the invisible. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> But apparently those are classified, if they exist, or they don't exist > > > >>>>>>>>> at all. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> It is therefore kind of nonsense to discuss 'big-bang', the existence of > > > >>>>>>>>> black holes or how fast gravity propagates, if much simpler questions > > > >>>>>>>>> cannot be solved. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> TH > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> "Invisible"???? do you mean like ...hiding from us? > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Nature does not hide. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Sure, nature hides lots of things. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> What you call 'visible' (from the Latin word 'visio' - 'I see') is > > > >>>>>>> depending on your eyes and your point of view. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Both aspects restrict the visibility of real things greatly. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> It is therefore nonsense to require visibility, if you want to call > > > >>>>>>> something 'real'. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Visibility is obviously restricted by the frequency of the received waves. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Human eyes are quite picky in respect to that and respond only to a very > > > >>>>>>> narrow spectrum. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Also the locations would matter, if you want to see something. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> E.g. you cannot see the 'backside' of the Moon, if you stand on planet > > > >>>>>>> Earth, even if that side of the Moon is oviously real. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Than we have restrictions of the kind of interaction, because our eyes > > > >>>>>>> do not respond to anything else than em-radiation. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> E.g. longitudinal waves or particle beams cannot be seen, even if they > > > >>>>>>> exist. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Next nasty thing is time: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> you cannot look into the past nor into the future, for instance. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> TH > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I look at your...response and I seem to see a lot of...hot air. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Of course, they say air is invisible... > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> is water invisible to a fish? > > > >>>> most likely the fish 'thinks' he's flying. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ... > > > >>>> > > > >>>> TH > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Air is visible. The color of air is Blue. > > > >>> > > > >>> From space it is a Blue Dot. > > > >>> > > > >>> You can look up and it's blue. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> You're walking on air... > > > >>> > > > >>> Actually, you are standing on the bottom of the blue ocean called...air. > > > >>> > > > >>> Get off my blue dot. > > > >>> > > > >> Sure, but the question was slightly different: > > > >> > > > >> "is water invisible to a fish?" > > > >> > > > >> And since you are not a fish, you don't know, whether or not fish would > > > >> see water as blue. > > > >> > > > >> To me it would make some sense, if the brain of a fish would filter the > > > >> water out. > > > >> > > > >> TH > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say the ocean where fish live is blue... > > > > > > > > I wrote: "Actually, you are standing on the bottom of the blue ocean > > > > called...air." > > > > > > > > > > > > That means, on the ground where people are standing...all the way up to > > > > the sky is Blue... > > > > > > > > you live in an ocean of Air. > > > > > > Ok, that's nice very nice poetry, but doesn't cover the question, > > > whether or not fish would see the water. > > > > > > > > > > > From toe to all the way up is sky...the blue sky. > > > > > > > > The SKY starts on the ground where you stand > > > > > > Looks like, but ain't the case. > > > > > > > The sky begins on the ground where you stand and goes all the way up to > > > > the end of sky. > > > > > > > > If you have problem with simple terms... > > > > > > > > atmosphere is sky. > > > > > > That's wrong, because what we call 'sky' goes way beyond the atmosphere. > > > > > > TH > > > > at·mos·phere > > /'atm??sfir/ > > noun > > > > the envelope of gases surrounding the earth > > > > Why is the sky blue? I guess some of yous still have a problem with that > > question, i see. > > > > Yous haven't even figured out what a "sky" IS. > > > > or even agree of it's definition...typical. > > > > I understand Germans definition of sky is a cloud. > > > > dumbkoff > > I don't why I find myself having to teach Yous people kidergarten physics... > > i mentioned BLUE dot, blue sky... > > An atmosphere is the layer of gases surrounding Earth > https://www.google.com/search?q=define+atmosphere > > atmosphere(n.) > 1630s, atmosphaera (modern form from 1670s), "gaseous envelop surrounding the earth," from Modern Latin atmosphaera, from > Greek atmos "vapor, steam" (see atmo-) + sphaira "sphere" (see sphere). > In old science, "vaporous air," which was considered a part of the earth and a contamination of the lower part of the air > https://www.etymonline.com/word/atmosphere > > air(n.1) > c. 1300, "invisible gases that surround the earth," from Old French air "atmosphere, breeze, weather" (12c.), from Latin aer "air, lower atmosphere, sky > https://www.etymonline.com/word/air#etymonline_v_8078 > > Hell, you guys cannot even agree how many planets are there in your own solar system! Is it 8 or 9, or ten???? > > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > and challenge the unchallengeable. The sky, from the ground where I'm standing towards 'up', is only around 60 miles. Of course, in Germany...when you reach a 'cloud'....kaput. Yous people are walking around on 'at the bottom' of the ocean of...air. In Herr Heger's mind, all the fish are flying in their ...sky. i guess they never learned how to swim... I'm in the mood for flying Fish and chips! I'm gonna open up a can of flying sardines. WHOA, THAT ONE IS STILL ALIVE!!! CATCH IT! -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-07 19:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndmhi7Fre5sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #671859 |
Am Freitag000007, 07.08.2026 um 01:39 schrieb The Starmaker: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> Am Montag000003, 03.08.2026 um 10:03 schrieb The Starmaker: >>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 06:24:14 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Am Mittwoch000029, 29.07.2026 um 08:14 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Am Montag000027, 27.07.2026 um 06:00 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am Samstag000025, 25.07.2026 um 08:05 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Natividad Ślusarski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past. Time is something completely else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not carry labels or calendars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time called 'now'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TH >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I was over here, and now I'm over here. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now, here is the REAL here and Now... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Here is here is here.. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now is very very far away apart from here. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now is everywhere >>>>>>>>>>>> Here is right here. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where? >>>>>>>>>>>> remove the letter 'W' >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There?? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> remove the letter 'T' >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's all Here! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What about Now? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now is like...WOW! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I mean, how do you measure here from here to over there...Now? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Where? >>>>>>>>>>> There. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now...all the way to the edige of the universe...Now. It's Now now. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Where? >>>>>>>>>>> over there! >>>>>>>>>>> It's now now. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> over here it is the same now as over there. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Where? >>>>>>>>>>> over there! >>>>>>>>>>> It's now now. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What time is it now? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you have to look at your watch...you got the wrong time. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The time now is...NOW! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What time is it now? Yes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The time is Now! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Where? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Everywhere!! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The problem of course is...where does Here begin? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here or over there? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Where? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Over here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What time is it now at the edge of the universe? Of course, it's Now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The hypersheet of the present is actually invisible, because we need >>>>>>>> light so see something and that needs time to travel. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, in effect we can't see the hypersheet of the present, but see along >>>>>>>> our own past-light-cone. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THAT cone HAS borders, because the past begins at the (alleged) big-bang. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So: no, the time at the borders of what you call 'universe' (which is >>>>>>>> actually your own past light cone) is, of course, not 'now'! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It would require to define the 'hypersheet of the present' and show, >>>>>>>> that THAT would have borders. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But, unfortunately, you cannot know whether or not it has borders, >>>>>>>> because you can't see in that direction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> TH >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The "cone" is incorrect and misinformation/madeup information. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Before the big bang (proto-universe), Time had no seconds no years. It >>>>>>> was eternal time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The big bang created time in...seconds. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not a big fan of 'big-bang theory' and personally think, this theory >>>>>> is garbage. >>>>> >>>>> I use the term "the big bang" because you guys don't like the word >>>>> "created" either. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think, that 'the universe' isn't universe at all, but what we call >>>>>> 'universe' is actually our own past light cone. >>>>>> >>>>>> That 'universe' is also 'stacked in time', what would make the entire >>>>>> picture unreal. >>>>>> >>>>>> What we see in the night sky does not refelct some sort of reality, but >>>>>> is composed of pictures from the past, which have different ages. >>>>> >>>>> I believe one can invent a camera that takes pictures of the past, like >>>>> 10 hours agao, or two days ago..which can be used to idenify a 'crime >>>>> scene' >>>>> as it took place then. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is very difficult, to artificially correct this error, because the >>>>>> universe is so large. And to know what is happening now in -say- 1 >>>>>> billion light years distance would require to wait for 1 billion years >>>>>> (what we can't). >>>>> >>>>> You can make a phone call with a quantum phone that the signal jumps >>>>> a billion light years away, and when the phone rings, and somebody picks >>>>> up their phone a billion light years away...You say, "I'm calling from >>>>> Earth." >>>>> and they will say..."How did you get this number?" >>>> >>>> Possibly... >>>> >>>> But usual cosmology doesn't use 'quantum phones'. >>>> >>>> Instead cosmologists peep through telescopes and gace at distant stars >>>> and galaxies. >>>> >>>> What is seen in a telescope isn't real and never was and never will be, >>>> because the picture is 'layered in time'. >>>> >>>> To see the content of the real 'hypersheet of the present' isn't easy, >>>> because you can't do that with light. >>>> >>>> Possibly there exist other means, which allow to see into the invisible. >>>> >>>> But apparently those are classified, if they exist, or they don't exist >>>> at all. >>>> >>>> It is therefore kind of nonsense to discuss 'big-bang', the existence of >>>> black holes or how fast gravity propagates, if much simpler questions >>>> cannot be solved. >>>> >>>> >>>> TH >>> >>> >>> >>> "Invisible"???? do you mean like ...hiding from us? >>> >>> Nature does not hide. >> >> Sure, nature hides lots of things. >> >> What you call 'visible' (from the Latin word 'visio' - 'I see') is >> depending on your eyes and your point of view. >> >> Both aspects restrict the visibility of real things greatly. >> >> It is therefore nonsense to require visibility, if you want to call >> something 'real'. >> >> Visibility is obviously restricted by the frequency of the received waves. >> >> Human eyes are quite picky in respect to that and respond only to a very >> narrow spectrum. >> >> Also the locations would matter, if you want to see something. >> >> E.g. you cannot see the 'backside' of the Moon, if you stand on planet >> Earth, even if that side of the Moon is oviously real. >> >> Than we have restrictions of the kind of interaction, because our eyes >> do not respond to anything else than em-radiation. >> >> E.g. longitudinal waves or particle beams cannot be seen, even if they >> exist. >> >> Next nasty thing is time: >> >> you cannot look into the past nor into the future, for instance. >> >> TH > > > I look at your...response and I seem to see a lot of...hot air. > Well, possibly. BUT: I present a certain idea/concept and try to defend that. Here I wanted to defend the idea, that unseen things could be real, nevertheless, even if nobody is watching. (Some asian philosophies claim otherwise.) But I wouldn't require recognition of an object by a human being, if I want to call that object 'real'. I would only require this: if some beeing would live there or nearby, that being should be able to interact with that object. But there is no need to require an observer in the first place. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-27 12:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6A67ABE4.3318@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #671586 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > > > > Natividad Ślusarski wrote: > > > >> Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > >>> 2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC. > > > >>> This is time. > > > >> > > > >> no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the > > > >> past. Time is something completely else. > > > > > > > > In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp". > > > > > > > > An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time. > > > > The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time > > > > standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity. > > > > > > > > > > No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'. > > > > > > You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do > > > not carry labels or calendars. > > > > > > Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some > > > time called 'now'. > > > > > > So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used. > > > > > > But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be > > > somewhere else. > > > > > > TH > > > > Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that. Now, since some of you girls say 'this and that'... How far apart is 'this' from 'that'? Now, I know perfectly well you are not allowed to have a clock where that is from where this is... How do you sync a clock that is over there from this here clock???? Einstein would say..."Fuck that clock! I'm only interested in THIS clock, not THAT clock!!!!" He knows he cannot syn this clock with that clock because that clock is too fucking far away. He is not dat good at math. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-22 15:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6A61427F.4FAE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #671584 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > > > Natividad Ślusarski wrote: > > >> Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > >>> 2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC. > > >>> This is time. > > >> > > >> no it's not; it's a event stamp regarding an unachievable reference of the > > >> past. Time is something completely else. > > > > > > In physics, there is such such thing as an "event stamp". > > > > > > An event is a point of (a) spacetime: it has a location in space and a time. > > > The date above lacks a location, so it is just _a_ time (based on a time > > > standard, UTC) -- but not time itself, which is a physical quantity. > > > > > > > No, spacetime is 'coordinates free'. > > > > You need an 'anchor point' to define space and time, because points do > > not carry labels or calendars. > > > > Somethings you always have as reference is your own position and some > > time called 'now'. > > > > So, most of the time some 'here-and-now-systems' are used. > > > > But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be > > somewhere else. > > > > TH > > Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that. > > So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now! She sez, "I know what you want, you want this!" I say, "Yeah, I want that!" Here, now! -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dolph Bazulev <vblpb@vuu.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-23 21:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <113u0am$2j9et$1@news.nntp4.net> |
| In reply to | #671584 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> But those system are quite arbitrary, because you could possibly be >> somewhere else. >> >> TH > > Well, guys say here and now...and girls say this and that. > > So, I tell girls, you see this here, well I want that now! the tv capitalist jew trumpf is crapping hard into his pants now, worse than the smellensky Backup Trump, you’re watching a movie…central casting [92p5yoys3J3L].mp4
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web