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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #675702 > unrolled thread

Time Flows

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

Contents

  Time Flows The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-11-05 22:11 -0800
    Re: Time Flows Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-06 07:14 +0100
      Re: Time Flows Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 07:33 +0000
        Re: Time Flows Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-06 08:45 +0100
          Re: Time Flows Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 07:51 +0000
            Re: Time Flows Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-06 09:01 +0100
              Re: Time Flows Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 08:44 +0000
                Re: Time Flows Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-06 09:49 +0100
                  Re: Time Flows Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 08:59 +0000
                    Re: Time Flows Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-06 10:09 +0100
                      Re: Time Flows Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 09:26 +0000
                        Re: Time Flows Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-06 10:42 +0100
                          Re: Time Flows Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 11:17 +0000
                            Re: Time Flows Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-06 15:51 +0100
                              Re: Time Flows Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 15:04 +0000
                                Re: Time Flows Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-06 17:26 +0100
                                  Re: Time Flows Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 16:30 +0000
                                    Re: Time Flows Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-06 17:55 +0100
    Re: Time Flows The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-11-06 19:03 -0800
      Re: Time Flows The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-11-07 20:50 -0800

#675702 — Time Flows

Time Flows? wats dat mean?

maybe i'm writing it wrong..

it is time flow, or time flows?

Or is it the flow of time, or the flows of time?

ok, i know what time it is...

but...but,

What is this flow made out of? 

Is it a bunch of arrows???


where is the bow?

okay, what does it mean when you say...time flows?



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#675703

On 11/6/2026 7:11 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Time Flows? wats dat mean?

That your brain is trained to combine letters into
such sequence.

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

#675705

Le 06/11/2026 à 07:14, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 11/6/2026 7:11 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Time Flows? wats dat mean?
> 
> That your brain is trained to combine letters into
> such sequence.

Interesting.

So when someone asks what "time flows" means, your answer is that their 
brain has been trained to combine letters.

Does the same explanation apply to "Euclidean geometry", "Poincaré" and 
"Einstein is an idiot"?

Or do words suddenly acquire meaning when you're the one using them?

Perhaps we should start with a simpler question:

What does "time" mean in YOUR physics?

Take your time. :-)

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

#675706

On 11/6/2026 8:33 AM, Python wrote:
> Le 06/11/2026 à 07:14, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>> On 11/6/2026 7:11 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Time Flows? wats dat mean?
>>
>> That your brain is trained to combine letters into
>> such sequence.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> So when someone asks what "time flows" means, your answer is that their 
> brain has been trained to combine letters.
> 
> Does the same explanation apply to "Euclidean geometry", "Poincaré" and 
> "Einstein is an idiot"?

Yes, poor piece of shit.


> What does "time" mean in YOUR physics?

I have no physics, I'm not interested in
developing another version of your
primitive brainwashing religion.

And what time means - well, one of:
{TAI, UTC, zone times, GPS time or
alike}.

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

#675707

Le 06/11/2026 à 08:45, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 11/6/2026 8:33 AM, Python wrote:
>> Le 06/11/2026 à 07:14, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>> On 11/6/2026 7:11 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> Time Flows? wats dat mean?
>>>
>>> That your brain is trained to combine letters into
>>> such sequence.
>> 
>> Interesting.
>> 
>> So when someone asks what "time flows" means, your answer is that their 
>> brain has been trained to combine letters.
>> 
>> Does the same explanation apply to "Euclidean geometry", "Poincaré" and 
>> "Einstein is an idiot"?
> 
> Yes, poor piece of shit.
> 
> 
>> What does "time" mean in YOUR physics?
> 
> I have no physics, I'm not interested in
> developing another version of your
> primitive brainwashing religion.
> 
> And what time means - well, one of:
> {TAI, UTC, zone times, GPS time or
> alike}.

So you have no physics, but you know that Einstein's physics is wrong.

And when asked what time means, you answer:

"TAI, UTC, zone times, GPS time..."

Wonderful.

That's like answering "What is temperature?" with "Celsius, Fahrenheit, 
Kelvin".

Or "What is distance?" with "kilometres, miles, inches".

You confuse a physical quantity with the conventions used to measure and 
express it.

And you call everyone else primitive.

One more question: since GPS time is on your list, do you understand why 
GPS satellite clocks require relativistic corrections?

Oh, sorry. We've already been around that circle.

Several hundred times.

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

#675708

On 11/6/2026 8:51 AM, Python wrote:
> Le 06/11/2026 à 08:45, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>> On 11/6/2026 8:33 AM, Python wrote:
>>> Le 06/11/2026 à 07:14, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>> On 11/6/2026 7:11 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Time Flows? wats dat mean?
>>>>
>>>> That your brain is trained to combine letters into
>>>> such sequence.
>>>
>>> Interesting.
>>>
>>> So when someone asks what "time flows" means, your answer is that 
>>> their brain has been trained to combine letters.
>>>
>>> Does the same explanation apply to "Euclidean geometry", "Poincaré" 
>>> and "Einstein is an idiot"?
>>
>> Yes, poor piece of shit.
>>
>>
>>> What does "time" mean in YOUR physics?
>>
>> I have no physics, I'm not interested in
>> developing another version of your
>> primitive brainwashing religion.
>>
>> And what time means - well, one of:
>> {TAI, UTC, zone times, GPS time or
>> alike}.
> 
> So you have no physics, but you know that Einstein's physics is wrong.

Yes, poor piece of shit, your desynchronizing
junk is just junk without any magically mystical
properties supported by some Higher Power.




> 
> And when asked what time means, you answer:
> 
> "TAI, UTC, zone times, GPS time..."
> 
> Wonderful.
> 
> That's like answering "What is temperature?" with "Celsius, Fahrenheit, 
> Kelvin".

No, sorry, poor piece of shit. Celsius, Fahrenheit,
Kelvin are "degrees", not "temoperature", while
every of my "times" has "time" as a part of
the name. What is called "time" is exactly
that - what is called time, and is no way
obliged to fit mystical delusions of some
brainwashed idiots.

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

#675709

Ah, so your argument is that "GPS time" defines time because it contains 
the word "time".

Brilliant.

By that logic, a "time zone" defines time, a "time bomb" defines time, and 
a "time machine" must prove time travel exists.

And since "horsepower" contains "horse", an engine must be an animal.

You have finally revealed your scientific methodology:

If a word contains another word, you've explained the underlying physics.

No equations, no experiments, no definitions required.

Just vocabulary.

And you accuse Einstein of mysticism.

Maciej, even a dictionary distinguishes between a word and what it 
denotes.

Perhaps that's where your next scientific revolution should begin. 

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

#675710

On 11/6/2026 9:44 AM, Python wrote:
> Ah, so your argument is that "GPS time" defines time because it contains 
> the word "time".
> 
> Brilliant.
> 
> By that logic, a "time zone" defines time, a "time bomb" defines time, 

Learn some English, poor piece of shit.
Time zone is a zone, zone time is a time.

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

#675711

Le 06/11/2026 à 09:49, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 11/6/2026 9:44 AM, Python wrote:
>> Ah, so your argument is that "GPS time" defines time because it contains 
>> the word "time".
>> 
>> Brilliant.
>> 
>> By that logic, a "time zone" defines time, a "time bomb" defines time, 
> 
> Learn some English, poor piece of shit.
> Time zone is a zone, zone time is a time.

Correct! A time zone is a zone, and zone time is a time.

Congratulations on your mastery of English word order.

Now, could you explain what TIME is, rather than merely listing things 
whose names contain the word?

Or is rearranging two words the closest we're going to get to your theory 
of time?

At this rate, you'll have discovered the dictionary before the end of the 
century.

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

#675712

On 11/6/2026 9:59 AM, Python wrote:
> Le 06/11/2026 à 09:49, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>> On 11/6/2026 9:44 AM, Python wrote:
>>> Ah, so your argument is that "GPS time" defines time because it 
>>> contains the word "time".
>>>
>>> Brilliant.
>>>
>>> By that logic, a "time zone" defines time, a "time bomb" defines time, 
>>
>> Learn some English, poor piece of shit.
>> Time zone is a zone, zone time is a time.
> 
> Correct! A time zone is a zone, and zone time is a time.
> 
> Congratulations on your mastery of English word order.
> 
> Now, could you explain what TIME is

Time is any of {UTC, TAI, zone times, GPS time
or alike}. The reality is no way obliged to
fit mystical delusions of some brainwashed
idiots.

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

#675713

Yes, you've already given us that list. Several times.

UTC, TAI and GPS time are time scales, not definitions of the physical 
concept of time.

It's like answering "What is length?" with "metres, feet, nautical miles 
or alike."

But let's try your approach.

What is space?

Any of {GPS coordinates, postal addresses, Google Maps or alike}?

And what is physics?

Apparently, any of {Einstein is an idiot, brainwashing religion, poor 
piece of shit or alike}.

At least your definition of physics would accurately describe your 
publications.

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

#675714

On 11/6/2026 10:26 AM, Python wrote:
> Yes, you've already given us that list. Several times.
> 
> UTC, TAI and GPS time are time scales, not definitions of the physical 
> concept of time.

I could write that no sane people care
about the physical concept of time.

But, instead, I'll write:

Sorry, poor piece of shit - the physical
concept of time is: time is what clocks
indicate.  UTC, TAI, zone times - all of
them fit  your definition perfectly. And
that mystical crap you're imagining around
that is just your problem.

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

#675717

Excellent! Finally, something we can agree on:

"Time is what clocks indicate."

Now, suppose two clocks are synchronized, follow different trajectories, 
and are brought back together.

They indicate different elapsed times.

According to your own definition, both indications are measurements of 
time.

Relativity predicts quantitatively how those indications will differ, and 
experiments test those predictions.

So where, exactly, is the "mystical crap"?

In measuring what clocks indicate?

Or in your insistence that they must indicate the same thing, regardless 
of what experiments show?

You have finally accepted the starting point of the very physics you've 
spent years insulting.

Congratulations. 

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

#675722

On 11/6/2026 12:17 PM, Python wrote:
> Excellent! Finally, something we can agree on:
> 
> "Time is what clocks indicate."
> 
> Now, suppose two clocks are synchronized, follow different trajectories, 
> and are brought back together.
> 
> They indicate different elapsed times.

In your moronic gedankenwelt - yes.
In the real GPS - no.

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

#675723

Maciej,

GPS satellite clocks have not been brought back together with clocks on 
Earth. So GPS is not the experiment I described.

But GPS provides another, independent test of relativity.

Special and general relativity predict a combined rate difference of 
approximately +38 microseconds per day for GPS satellite clocks relative 
to clocks on the geoid.

That difference is compensated for in the system, notably by adjusting the 
satellite oscillators' nominal frequencies before launch.

The fact that the corrected clocks remain synchronized is not evidence 
that the relativistic effects are absent. It is evidence that the 
corrections work.

You keep confusing a compensated effect with a nonexistent effect.

And you still haven't provided a single published experiment in which 
relativity predicts a nonzero clock difference and the measured difference 
is zero.

Around the same circle we go. :-)

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

#675725

On 11/6/2026 4:04 PM, Python wrote:
> Maciej,
> 
> GPS satellite clocks have not been brought back together with clocks on 
> Earth. So GPS is not the experiment I described.
> 
> But GPS provides another, independent test of relativity.

Right, poor piece of shit, it's providing
the test of clock indications which
The Shit fail miserably.

As for GPS clocks - what they indicate is
GPS time. So, definitely, GPS time is
"what clocks indicate".

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

#675727

Le 06/11/2026 à 17:26, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 11/6/2026 4:04 PM, Python wrote:
>> Maciej,
>> 
>> GPS satellite clocks have not been brought back together with clocks on 
>> Earth. So GPS is not the experiment I described.
>> 
>> But GPS provides another, independent test of relativity.
> 
> Right, poor piece of shit, it's providing
> the test of clock indications which
> The Shit fail miserably.
> 
> As for GPS clocks - what they indicate is
> GPS time. So, definitely, GPS time is
> "what clocks indicate".


We've been through all this before.

A device doesn't become an ideal clock measuring proper time merely 
because you call it a "clock".

GPS time is a coordinate time scale. GPS satellite clocks are physical 
oscillators whose rates require relativistic corrections to maintain that 
scale.

You keep confusing the two.

And remember Einstein's statement that Newton's equations hold good?

That doesn't mean Newtonian mechanics is exact in every regime, any more 
than GPS clocks displaying GPS time means relativistic effects don't 
exist.

But we've explained all this to you repeatedly.

I would say you have the memory of a goldfish, except that would be unfair 
to goldfish.

At least they can learn.

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

#675729

On 11/6/2026 5:30 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 06/11/2026 à 17:26, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>> On 11/6/2026 4:04 PM, Python wrote:
>>> Maciej,
>>>
>>> GPS satellite clocks have not been brought back together with clocks 
>>> on Earth. So GPS is not the experiment I described.
>>>
>>> But GPS provides another, independent test of relativity.
>>
>> Right, poor piece of shit, it's providing
>> the test of clock indications which
>> The Shit fail miserably.
>>
>> As for GPS clocks - what they indicate is
>> GPS time. So, definitely, GPS time is
>> "what clocks indicate".
> 
> 
> We've been through all this before.
> 
> A device doesn't become an ideal clock measuring proper time merely 
> because you call it a "clock".

Sure, it can only became when you
call it.

Unfortunately, nobody has to care
whether a brainwashed idiot finds
it ideal and proper  or not - and
nobody does.

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

#675740

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Time Flows? wats dat mean?
> 
> maybe i'm writing it wrong..
> 
> it is time flow, or time flows?
> 
> Or is it the flow of time, or the flows of time?
> 
> ok, i know what time it is...
> 
> but...but,
> 
> What is this flow made out of?
> 
> Is it a bunch of arrows???
> 
> where is the bow?
> 
> okay, what does it mean when you say...time flows?




Is space-time space-time flows? Or space flows?

i goota figure out this 'flow' thing and what is it??

i don't go with the flow...




-- 
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]

#675799

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Time Flows? wats dat mean?
> >
> > maybe i'm writing it wrong..
> >
> > it is time flow, or time flows?
> >
> > Or is it the flow of time, or the flows of time?
> >
> > ok, i know what time it is...
> >
> > but...but,
> >
> > What is this flow made out of?
> >
> > Is it a bunch of arrows???
> >
> > where is the bow?
> >
> > okay, what does it mean when you say...time flows?
> 
> Is space-time space-time flows? Or space flows?
> 
> i goota figure out this 'flow' thing and what is it??
> 
> i don't go with the flow...




Now, let's take it a step further..

if there is a 'flow' of time

then spacetime is a flow of spacetime.

That means, Gravity...flows.

It not just flows through space and time, but it also flows through

beyond spacetime enclosure.

In other words, you remove space and time you still got gravity flowing.

I'm not talking about gravitational waves, but the waves wave on the
...flow.


So, if time flows ---------->




-- 
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] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web