Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #666070 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-09-15 11:48 +0200 |
| Last post | 2025-09-26 08:48 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 82 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 11:48 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Jace Dubanowski <jwo@scj.pl> - 2025-09-15 11:18 +0000
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-15 14:17 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 16:14 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Richard Bukowski <iia@sirwihkw.pl> - 2025-09-15 14:59 +0000
Re: Time and sharks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-15 10:46 -0700
Re: Time and sharks Nich Majewski <wka@nwnn.pl> - 2025-09-16 11:03 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-15 16:50 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 19:16 +0200
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-15 22:10 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 22:44 +0200
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-16 10:47 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-16 12:14 +0200
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-17 20:11 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-17 21:00 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-17 19:14 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-17 21:41 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-17 19:44 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-17 21:53 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-17 19:56 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-17 22:03 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-17 20:05 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-17 22:27 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-17 20:33 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-18 07:05 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-18 08:33 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-18 12:01 +0200
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-18 14:47 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-18 15:26 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-18 15:31 +0200
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-18 22:14 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-18 22:37 +0200
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-19 15:40 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-19 15:59 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Stefhen Maslanka <nts@anhks.pl> - 2025-09-19 14:42 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-19 20:17 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-19 19:19 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-19 22:04 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-19 20:59 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-20 15:51 +0000
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-20 22:52 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Azael Christakos <aslo@aors.gr> - 2025-09-20 21:30 +0000
Re: Time and sharks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-21 12:52 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Vaugn Krakowski <ksa@nink.pl> - 2025-09-21 12:02 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-20 23:35 +0200
Re: Time and sharks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-21 12:52 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-21 15:35 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-21 15:26 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-21 19:33 +0200
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-18 14:48 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Neury Wronski <uuks@wieisrow.pl> - 2025-09-18 16:32 +0000
Re: Time and sharks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-15 10:42 -0700
Re: Time and sharks Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-09-15 21:22 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-09-15 21:23 +0200
Re: Time and sharks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-15 15:57 -0700
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-16 06:56 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-16 08:46 +0200
Re: Time and sharks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-16 12:53 -0700
Re: Time and sharks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-17 08:56 +0200
Re: Time and sharks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-17 20:26 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-21 10:42 +0200
Re: Time and sharks "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-25 15:21 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-25 15:28 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-25 19:24 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-25 23:35 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-26 09:00 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 15:52 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-26 08:54 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 07:26 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-26 11:54 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 14:28 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 21:38 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-27 08:00 +0200
Re: Time and sharks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-26 23:27 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-27 08:03 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-26 23:31 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Mauro Górski <iaib@mampg.pl> - 2025-09-26 22:20 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 18:24 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-26 23:04 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-26 19:59 +0200
Re: Time and sharks Hollis Meeuwissen <iii@hsuw.nl> - 2025-09-25 18:53 +0000
Re: Time and sharks Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-26 08:48 +0200
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-21 10:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mj9rreF8qp2U12@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666126 |
Am Mittwoch000017, 17.09.2025 um 20:26 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 16.09.2025 08:46, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> >>> My questions are: >>> 1. Can you measure "the real time"? >> >> The measure 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a >> beginning and an end. >> >> This is so because time is based on the idea of counting events of >> known frequency. >> >> And counting starts with 'one, two, three...'. >> >> The end of this process is the time of the event in question. >> >> Usually the used clock has some internal means to calculate user >> friendly outputs, which we call 'current time'. >> >> But mainly it is based on some sort of oscillator with known frequency >> and some sort of 'computer', which generates the output. >> >> Since this principle requires always a starting point, we negotiated >> 'universal' starting points on Earth. >> >> Of those there are several in use on Earth, mainly the supposed birth >> of Jesus Christ. >> >> Other events are also possible, while also questionable. >> >> Jesus for instance was most like born much earlier and was most likely >> not named 'Jesus'. >> >> As far as this is know, 'Jesus' is based on a Greek name, while the >> actually meant person was (most likely) a Jew who spoke Aramaic, hence >> certainly had no Greek name. >> >> Similar with other 'starting points', especially the 'big bang', >> because most likely 'big-bangs' are 'relative'. >> >> > > Does this mean that time is measurable? > That depends on what you understand under 'time'. Many people think about time as being provided by a 'universal calendar with a huge clock'. But that wouldn't be measurable, because time does not flow this way. Iow: there ain't no such thing as 'absolute time', which you could eventually measure. You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and the local frequency of its units. As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was born. As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home planet, even if that isn't perfectly stable. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-25 15:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10b3fi5$adb4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666191 |
Den 21.09.2025 10:42, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Mittwoch000017, 17.09.2025 um 20:26 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 16.09.2025 08:46, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> >>>> My questions are: >>>> 1. Can you measure "the real time"? >>> >>> The measure 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a >>> beginning and an end. >>> >>> This is so because time is based on the idea of counting events of >>> known frequency. >>> >>> And counting starts with 'one, two, three...'. >>> >>> The end of this process is the time of the event in question. >>> >>> Usually the used clock has some internal means to calculate user >>> friendly outputs, which we call 'current time'. >>> >>> But mainly it is based on some sort of oscillator with known >>> frequency and some sort of 'computer', which generates the output. >>> >>> Since this principle requires always a starting point, we negotiated >>> 'universal' starting points on Earth. >>> >>> Of those there are several in use on Earth, mainly the supposed birth >>> of Jesus Christ. >>> >>> Other events are also possible, while also questionable. >>> >>> Jesus for instance was most like born much earlier and was most >>> likely not named 'Jesus'. >>> >>> As far as this is know, 'Jesus' is based on a Greek name, while the >>> actually meant person was (most likely) a Jew who spoke Aramaic, >>> hence certainly had no Greek name. >>> >>> Similar with other 'starting points', especially the 'big bang', >>> because most likely 'big-bangs' are 'relative'. >>> >>> >> >> Does this mean that time is measurable? >> > > That depends on what you understand under 'time'. > > > Many people think about time as being provided by a 'universal calendar > with a huge clock'. > But that wouldn't be measurable, because time does not flow this way. > > Iow: there ain't no such thing as 'absolute time', which you could > eventually measure. Have you never used your wristwatch to measure the 'time' between two events? (Like 'leaving home' and 'arrive at destination'.) Was that 'time' measurable, or ain't there any such thing which you could eventually measure? > > > You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and the > local frequency of its units. > > As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if > nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? > > > As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home planet, > even if that isn't perfectly stable. Never heard of the SI-definition of second? > > > TH > BTW, on which planet are you living? It seems very weird. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-25 15:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1868898ad12f4e8c$582703$3040052$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666263 |
On 9/25/2025 3:21 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 21.09.2025 10:42, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Mittwoch000017, 17.09.2025 um 20:26 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 16.09.2025 08:46, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>> >>>>> My questions are: >>>>> 1. Can you measure "the real time"? >>>> >>>> The measure 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a >>>> beginning and an end. >>>> >>>> This is so because time is based on the idea of counting events of >>>> known frequency. >>>> >>>> And counting starts with 'one, two, three...'. >>>> >>>> The end of this process is the time of the event in question. >>>> >>>> Usually the used clock has some internal means to calculate user >>>> friendly outputs, which we call 'current time'. >>>> >>>> But mainly it is based on some sort of oscillator with known >>>> frequency and some sort of 'computer', which generates the output. >>>> >>>> Since this principle requires always a starting point, we negotiated >>>> 'universal' starting points on Earth. >>>> >>>> Of those there are several in use on Earth, mainly the supposed >>>> birth of Jesus Christ. >>>> >>>> Other events are also possible, while also questionable. >>>> >>>> Jesus for instance was most like born much earlier and was most >>>> likely not named 'Jesus'. >>>> >>>> As far as this is know, 'Jesus' is based on a Greek name, while the >>>> actually meant person was (most likely) a Jew who spoke Aramaic, >>>> hence certainly had no Greek name. >>>> >>>> Similar with other 'starting points', especially the 'big bang', >>>> because most likely 'big-bangs' are 'relative'. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Does this mean that time is measurable? >>> >> >> That depends on what you understand under 'time'. >> >> >> Many people think about time as being provided by a 'universal >> calendar with a huge clock'. >> But that wouldn't be measurable, because time does not flow this way. >> >> Iow: there ain't no such thing as 'absolute time', which you could >> eventually measure. > Have you never used your wristwatch to measure > the 'time' between two events? > (Like 'leaving home' and 'arrive at destination'.) > > Was that 'time' measurable, or ain't there any such thing > which you could eventually measure? > >> >> >> You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and the >> local frequency of its units. >> >> As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if >> nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was >> born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used > to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that > the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? They're not even using clocks for that, poor trash. A "stopwatch" is a similar device, but different enough to get a different name. When defining "time" the idiot you're worshipping introduced "position of hands". And that only has sense when the start point is known. > >> >> >> As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home planet, >> even if that isn't perfectly stable. > > Never heard of the SI-definition of second? An ideological nonsense concocted by brainwashed religious maniacs and ignored by every timekeeping system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-25 19:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <seQ9J9tYSLh5AnW8Vo-TNOvZUEE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666264 |
Le 25/09/2025 à 15:28, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/25/2025 3:21 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >> Den 21.09.2025 10:42, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Mittwoch000017, 17.09.2025 um 20:26 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> Den 16.09.2025 08:46, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>> >>>>>> My questions are: >>>>>> 1. Can you measure "the real time"? >>>>> >>>>> The measure 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a >>>>> beginning and an end. >>>>> >>>>> This is so because time is based on the idea of counting events of >>>>> known frequency. >>>>> >>>>> And counting starts with 'one, two, three...'. >>>>> >>>>> The end of this process is the time of the event in question. >>>>> >>>>> Usually the used clock has some internal means to calculate user >>>>> friendly outputs, which we call 'current time'. >>>>> >>>>> But mainly it is based on some sort of oscillator with known >>>>> frequency and some sort of 'computer', which generates the output. >>>>> >>>>> Since this principle requires always a starting point, we negotiated >>>>> 'universal' starting points on Earth. >>>>> >>>>> Of those there are several in use on Earth, mainly the supposed >>>>> birth of Jesus Christ. >>>>> >>>>> Other events are also possible, while also questionable. >>>>> >>>>> Jesus for instance was most like born much earlier and was most >>>>> likely not named 'Jesus'. >>>>> >>>>> As far as this is know, 'Jesus' is based on a Greek name, while the >>>>> actually meant person was (most likely) a Jew who spoke Aramaic, >>>>> hence certainly had no Greek name. >>>>> >>>>> Similar with other 'starting points', especially the 'big bang', >>>>> because most likely 'big-bangs' are 'relative'. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Does this mean that time is measurable? >>>> >>> >>> That depends on what you understand under 'time'. >>> >>> >>> Many people think about time as being provided by a 'universal >>> calendar with a huge clock'. >>> But that wouldn't be measurable, because time does not flow this way. >>> >>> Iow: there ain't no such thing as 'absolute time', which you could >>> eventually measure. >> Have you never used your wristwatch to measure >> the 'time' between two events? >> (Like 'leaving home' and 'arrive at destination'.) >> >> Was that 'time' measurable, or ain't there any such thing >> which you could eventually measure? >> >>> >>> >>> You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and the >>> local frequency of its units. >>> >>> As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if >>> nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was >>> born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used >> to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that >> the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? > > They're not even using clocks for that, poor trash. > A "stopwatch" is a similar device, but different > enough to get a different name. > When defining "time" the idiot you're worshipping > introduced "position of hands". An inability to spot a metaphor is a sign of mental illness. > And that only > has sense when the start point is known. What do you mean by "start point" ? If it is the event "the clock marks t = 0" this is definitely something Einstein-Poincaré synchronization leads to determine. It does not play any specific role btw. 0 is a clock value as any other :-) Maybe you're more stupid than Thomas Heger, I start to consider that. This is quite an impressive achievement on your side. Poor nurses...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-25 23:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1868a4256b9511a3$156532$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666272 |
On 9/25/2025 9:24 PM, Python wrote: > Le 25/09/2025 à 15:28, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/25/2025 3:21 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>> Den 21.09.2025 10:42, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am Mittwoch000017, 17.09.2025 um 20:26 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>> Den 16.09.2025 08:46, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>> Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My questions are: >>>>>>> 1. Can you measure "the real time"? >>>>>> >>>>>> The measure 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a >>>>>> beginning and an end. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is so because time is based on the idea of counting events of >>>>>> known frequency. >>>>>> >>>>>> And counting starts with 'one, two, three...'. >>>>>> >>>>>> The end of this process is the time of the event in question. >>>>>> >>>>>> Usually the used clock has some internal means to calculate user >>>>>> friendly outputs, which we call 'current time'. >>>>>> >>>>>> But mainly it is based on some sort of oscillator with known >>>>>> frequency and some sort of 'computer', which generates the output. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since this principle requires always a starting point, we >>>>>> negotiated 'universal' starting points on Earth. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of those there are several in use on Earth, mainly the supposed >>>>>> birth of Jesus Christ. >>>>>> >>>>>> Other events are also possible, while also questionable. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jesus for instance was most like born much earlier and was most >>>>>> likely not named 'Jesus'. >>>>>> >>>>>> As far as this is know, 'Jesus' is based on a Greek name, while >>>>>> the actually meant person was (most likely) a Jew who spoke >>>>>> Aramaic, hence certainly had no Greek name. >>>>>> >>>>>> Similar with other 'starting points', especially the 'big bang', >>>>>> because most likely 'big-bangs' are 'relative'. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Does this mean that time is measurable? >>>>> >>>> >>>> That depends on what you understand under 'time'. >>>> >>>> >>>> Many people think about time as being provided by a 'universal >>>> calendar with a huge clock'. >>>> But that wouldn't be measurable, because time does not flow this way. >>>> >>>> Iow: there ain't no such thing as 'absolute time', which you could >>>> eventually measure. >>> Have you never used your wristwatch to measure >>> the 'time' between two events? >>> (Like 'leaving home' and 'arrive at destination'.) >>> >>> Was that 'time' measurable, or ain't there any such thing >>> which you could eventually measure? >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and >>>> the local frequency of its units. >>>> >>>> As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if >>>> nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was >>>> born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used >>> to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that >>> the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? >> >> They're not even using clocks for that, poor trash. >> A "stopwatch" is a similar device, but different >> enough to get a different name. >> When defining "time" the idiot you're worshipping >> introduced "position of hands". > > An inability to spot a metaphor is a sign of mental illness. Seeing a metaphor where there is no, on the other hand, is a sign of dumbness and stupidity. Position of hands - like 15:30 - is a timestamp. Not an interval. The idiot was of course too primitive to notice that the clocks are only responsible for the less significant part of a timestamp. The reality is too complicated for those like him or yourself. > >> And that only >> has sense when the start point is known. > > What do you mean by "start point" ? If it is the event "the clock marks But this is not. Better stick to your delusions, poor stinker - the reality is far, far, far too complicated for your tiny, fanatic halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 09:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mjmrn7Ffr5sU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666272 |
Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 21:24 schrieb Python: ... >>>> You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and >>>> the local frequency of its units. >>>> >>>> As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if >>>> nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was >>>> born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used >>> to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that >>> the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? >> >> They're not even using clocks for that, poor trash. >> A "stopwatch" is a similar device, but different >> enough to get a different name. >> When defining "time" the idiot you're worshipping >> introduced "position of hands". > > An inability to spot a metaphor is a sign of mental illness. > >> And that only >> has sense when the start point is known. > > What do you mean by "start point" ? If it is the event "the clock marks > t = 0" this is definitely something Einstein-Poincaré synchronization > leads to determine. It does not play any specific role btw. 0 is a clock > value as any other :-) Time always requires to define a starting point, because time is actually an interval, even if most people don't recognize that. We have usual clocks like e.g. a wrist watch, which are commonly set to the local time by some sort or timing signal. E.g. the BBC transmitted the sound of 'Big Ben' at noon. Then we have calendars which also get synchronized each year at a huge celebration. This is then used as stating point of time for this particular year and location. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-25 15:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <TnQ9p4UxMYqDxx9c8Tp9jzs8eJo@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666263 |
Le 25/09/2025 à 15:20, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Den 21.09.2025 10:42, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Mittwoch000017, 17.09.2025 um 20:26 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 16.09.2025 08:46, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>> >>>>> My questions are: >>>>> 1. Can you measure "the real time"? >>>> >>>> The measure 'time' is actually an interval and needs to have a >>>> beginning and an end. >>>> >>>> This is so because time is based on the idea of counting events of >>>> known frequency. >>>> >>>> And counting starts with 'one, two, three...'. >>>> >>>> The end of this process is the time of the event in question. >>>> >>>> Usually the used clock has some internal means to calculate user >>>> friendly outputs, which we call 'current time'. >>>> >>>> But mainly it is based on some sort of oscillator with known >>>> frequency and some sort of 'computer', which generates the output. >>>> >>>> Since this principle requires always a starting point, we negotiated >>>> 'universal' starting points on Earth. >>>> >>>> Of those there are several in use on Earth, mainly the supposed birth >>>> of Jesus Christ. >>>> >>>> Other events are also possible, while also questionable. >>>> >>>> Jesus for instance was most like born much earlier and was most >>>> likely not named 'Jesus'. >>>> >>>> As far as this is know, 'Jesus' is based on a Greek name, while the >>>> actually meant person was (most likely) a Jew who spoke Aramaic, >>>> hence certainly had no Greek name. >>>> >>>> Similar with other 'starting points', especially the 'big bang', >>>> because most likely 'big-bangs' are 'relative'. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Does this mean that time is measurable? >>> >> >> That depends on what you understand under 'time'. >> >> >> Many people think about time as being provided by a 'universal calendar >> with a huge clock'. >> But that wouldn't be measurable, because time does not flow this way. >> >> Iow: there ain't no such thing as 'absolute time', which you could >> eventually measure. > Have you never used your wristwatch to measure > the 'time' between two events? > (Like 'leaving home' and 'arrive at destination'.) > > Was that 'time' measurable, or ain't there any such thing > which you could eventually measure? > >> >> >> You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and the >> local frequency of its units. >> >> As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if >> nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was born.Could >> those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used > to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that > the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? > >> >> >> As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home planet, >> even if that isn't perfectly stable. > > Never heard of the SI-definition of second? > >> >> >> TH >> > BTW, on which planet are you living? > It seems very weird. Growing Earth, he actually believe that also 😂
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 08:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mjmrc2Ffr5sU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666267 |
Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python: ... >>> You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and the >>> local frequency of its units. >>> >>> As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if >>> nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was >>> born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used >> to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that >> the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? >> >>> >>> >>> As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home planet, >>> even if that isn't perfectly stable. >> >> Never heard of the SI-definition of second? >> >>> >>> >>> TH >>> >> BTW, on which planet are you living? >> It seems very weird. > > Growing Earth, he actually believe that also 😂 I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons of evidence, that Earth does in fact grows. There are actually numerous observation which everybody could easily make, which require a growing planet. Main: the growth of the planet makes sea-levels fall over very long periods of time. This means: former sea-bottom is now land and that can be easily seen almost everywhere (once you know what to look for). 'Growing Earth' is also among the most important questions in physics, because tons of questions are related to the question, whether or not matter could be created out of nowhere (or not). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 07:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jUvEe4Hpd8pvST4vOn2USZ4OPVc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666282 |
Le 26/09/2025 à 08:49, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python: > ... >>>> You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and the >>>> local frequency of its units. >>>> >>>> As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if >>>> nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was >>>> born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used >>> to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that >>> the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home planet, >>>> even if that isn't perfectly stable. >>> >>> Never heard of the SI-definition of second? >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> TH >>>> >>> BTW, on which planet are you living? >>> It seems very weird. >> >> Growing Earth, he actually believe that also 😂 > > I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons of > evidence, that Earth does in fact grows. What you call "evidence" is what sane people call delusions. You are INSANE Thomas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 11:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1868cc733882f391$180593$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666287 |
On 9/26/2025 9:26 AM, Python wrote: > Le 26/09/2025 à 08:49, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python: >> ... >>>>> You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and >>>>> the local frequency of its units. >>>>> >>>>> As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if >>>>> nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was >>>>> born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used >>>> to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that >>>> the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home >>>>> planet, even if that isn't perfectly stable. >>>> >>>> Never heard of the SI-definition of second? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> TH >>>>> >>>> BTW, on which planet are you living? >>>> It seems very weird. >>> >>> Growing Earth, he actually believe that also 😂 >> >> I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons of >> evidence, that Earth does in fact grows. > > What you call "evidence" is what sane people call delusions. That's right, poor stinker. A physicist or a wannabe physicist - the "logic" is similar. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 14:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rkpo03BbQ0LYFW75Chn01vzLJ10@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666288 |
Le 26/09/2025 à 11:54, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/26/2025 9:26 AM, Python wrote: >> Le 26/09/2025 à 08:49, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python: >>> ... >>>>>> You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and >>>>>> the local frequency of its units. >>>>>> >>>>>> As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even if >>>>>> nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person was >>>>>> born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used >>>>> to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that >>>>> the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home >>>>>> planet, even if that isn't perfectly stable. >>>>> >>>>> Never heard of the SI-definition of second? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> TH >>>>>> >>>>> BTW, on which planet are you living? >>>>> It seems very weird. >>>> >>>> Growing Earth, he actually believe that also 😂 >>> >>> I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons of >>> evidence, that Earth does in fact grows. >> >> What you call "evidence" is what sane people call delusions. > > That's right, poor stinker. A physicist > or a wannabe physicist - the "logic" is > similar. > > > >> >> You also believe in a growing Earth? Or a flat Earth maybe 😁 ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 21:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <I3GDu8UUWozVfP7JB2NfSoxomVw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666289 |
Le 26/09/2025 à 23:31, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/26/2025 11:27 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Le 26/09/2025 à 19:59, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit : >>>> On 9/26/2025 4:28 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 26/09/2025 à 11:54, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit : >>>>>> On 9/26/2025 9:26 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 26/09/2025 à 08:49, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python: >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>> You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and >>>>>>>>>>> the local frequency of its units. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even >>>>>>>>>>> if nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person >>>>>>>>>>> was born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used >>>>>>>>>> to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that >>>>>>>>>> the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home >>>>>>>>>>> planet, even if that isn't perfectly stable. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Never heard of the SI-definition of second? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> TH >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> BTW, on which planet are you living? >>>>>>>>>> It seems very weird. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Growing Earth, he actually believe that also ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons >>>>>>>> of evidence, that Earth does in fact grows. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What you call "evidence" is what sane people call delusions. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's right, poor stinker. A physicist >>>>>> or a wannabe physicist - the "logic" is >>>>>> similar. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You also believe in a growing Earth? >>>>> Or a flat Earth maybe ? ? >>>> >>>> Neither. You're just slandering, like >>>> always. >>> >>> I'm not slandering, I'm asking. >> >> With good reason, it seems to me. > > Slandering the enemies of a moronic > religion is always "with good reasons" > for the worshippers. It is not a religion. It is not moronic, YOU are the moron. There is no worshipers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 08:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18690e4767729e38$155144$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666291 |
On 9/26/2025 11:38 PM, Python wrote: > Le 26/09/2025 à 23:31, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/26/2025 11:27 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Le 26/09/2025 à 19:59, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit : >>>>> On 9/26/2025 4:28 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 26/09/2025 à 11:54, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit : >>>>>>> On 9/26/2025 9:26 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 26/09/2025 à 08:49, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python: >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>> You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in >>>>>>>>>>>> time) and >>>>>>>>>>>> the local frequency of its units. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', >>>>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>>>> if nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person >>>>>>>>>>>> was born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used >>>>>>>>>>> to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that >>>>>>>>>>> the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home >>>>>>>>>>>> planet, even if that isn't perfectly stable. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Never heard of the SI-definition of second? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> TH >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> BTW, on which planet are you living? >>>>>>>>>>> It seems very weird. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Growing Earth, he actually believe that also ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons >>>>>>>>> of evidence, that Earth does in fact grows. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What you call "evidence" is what sane people call delusions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's right, poor stinker. A physicist >>>>>>> or a wannabe physicist - the "logic" is >>>>>>> similar. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You also believe in a growing Earth? >>>>>> Or a flat Earth maybe ? ? >>>>> >>>>> Neither. You're just slandering, like >>>>> always. >>>> >>>> I'm not slandering, I'm asking. >>> >>> With good reason, it seems to me. >> >> Slandering the enemies of a moronic >> religion is always "with good reasons" >> for the worshippers. > > It is not a religion. > It is not moronic, YOU are the moron. > There is no worshipers. See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot guru to be not even consistent, and you can do nothing about it apart of spitting, insulting and slandering. But you will do what you can for your moronic religion. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 23:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1rjaj0m.1mzjszz1agekkzN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #666289 |
Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> wrote: > Le 26/09/2025 à 19:59, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit : > > On 9/26/2025 4:28 PM, Python wrote: > >> Le 26/09/2025 à 11:54, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit : > >>> On 9/26/2025 9:26 AM, Python wrote: > >>>> Le 26/09/2025 à 08:49, Thomas Heger a écrit : > >>>>> Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python: > >>>>> ... > >>>>>>>> You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and > >>>>>>>> the local frequency of its units. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even > >>>>>>>> if nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person > >>>>>>>> was born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used > >>>>>>> to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that > >>>>>>> the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home > >>>>>>>> planet, even if that isn't perfectly stable. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Never heard of the SI-definition of second? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> TH > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> BTW, on which planet are you living? > >>>>>>> It seems very weird. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Growing Earth, he actually believe that also ? > >>>>> > >>>>> I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons > >>>>> of evidence, that Earth does in fact grows. > >>>> > >>>> What you call "evidence" is what sane people call delusions. > >>> > >>> That's right, poor stinker. A physicist > >>> or a wannabe physicist - the "logic" is > >>> similar. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> You also believe in a growing Earth? > >> Or a flat Earth maybe ? ? > > > > Neither. You're just slandering, like > > always. > > I'm not slandering, I'm asking. With good reason, it seems to me. By an old German proverb: 'Ein Unglück kommt selten allein' Or french: 'Le malheur arrive rarement seul' (Literally, 'A misfortune rarely comes alone) Best English equivalent for meaning: 'When it rains, it pours'. Applied to this forum: Crazy ideas rarely happen in isolation. Someone with one crazy idea usually turns out to be a complete nutter. No one in particular in mind of course, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-27 08:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18690e6cd85e45a9$155145$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666299 |
> J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> Best English equivalent for meaning: >> 'When it rains, it pours'. >> >> Applied to this forum: Crazy ideas rarely happen in isolation. Someone >> with one crazy idea usually turns out to be a complete nutter. Your idiot guru, for instance: first announced that good clocks are desynchronizing clocks - and just some years later announced basic math false. Of course, his obedient doggies soon found "proofs" that it was always obvious that basic mathematics is false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 23:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1868f2817c797868$262507$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666299 |
On 9/26/2025 11:27 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Le 26/09/2025 à 19:59, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit : >>> On 9/26/2025 4:28 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 26/09/2025 à 11:54, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit : >>>>> On 9/26/2025 9:26 AM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 26/09/2025 à 08:49, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python: >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and >>>>>>>>>> the local frequency of its units. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even >>>>>>>>>> if nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person >>>>>>>>>> was born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used >>>>>>>>> to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that >>>>>>>>> the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home >>>>>>>>>> planet, even if that isn't perfectly stable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Never heard of the SI-definition of second? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> TH >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> BTW, on which planet are you living? >>>>>>>>> It seems very weird. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Growing Earth, he actually believe that also ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons >>>>>>> of evidence, that Earth does in fact grows. >>>>>> >>>>>> What you call "evidence" is what sane people call delusions. >>>>> >>>>> That's right, poor stinker. A physicist >>>>> or a wannabe physicist - the "logic" is >>>>> similar. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> You also believe in a growing Earth? >>>> Or a flat Earth maybe ? ? >>> >>> Neither. You're just slandering, like >>> always. >> >> I'm not slandering, I'm asking. > > With good reason, it seems to me. Slandering the enemies of a moronic religion is always "with good reasons" for the worshippers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mauro Górski <iaib@mampg.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 22:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10b73jr$1b24n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666299 |
J. J. Lodder wrote: > Best English equivalent for meaning: > 'When it rains, it pours'. > > Applied to this forum: Crazy ideas rarely happen in isolation. Someone > with one crazy idea usually turns out to be a complete nutter. but the earth is today larger than it was 100 years ago, for instance. It's simple mathematics, touch my balls. What are you so intricate about. the smellensky of ukrane attacks again your country with drones, maybe you should reconsider.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 18:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <KoUgNg4VrG8y4i1qwxFiRtnrB4s@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666289 |
Le 26/09/2025 à 19:59, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 9/26/2025 4:28 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 26/09/2025 à 11:54, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>> On 9/26/2025 9:26 AM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 26/09/2025 à 08:49, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>> Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python: >>>>> ... >>>>>>>> You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and >>>>>>>> the local frequency of its units. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even >>>>>>>> if nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person >>>>>>>> was born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used >>>>>>> to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that >>>>>>> the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home >>>>>>>> planet, even if that isn't perfectly stable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Never heard of the SI-definition of second? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> TH >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> BTW, on which planet are you living? >>>>>>> It seems very weird. >>>>>> >>>>>> Growing Earth, he actually believe that also 😂 >>>>> >>>>> I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons >>>>> of evidence, that Earth does in fact grows. >>>> >>>> What you call "evidence" is what sane people call delusions. >>> >>> That's right, poor stinker. A physicist >>> or a wannabe physicist - the "logic" is >>> similar. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >> >> You also believe in a growing Earth? >> Or a flat Earth maybe 😁 ? > > Neither. You're just slandering, like > always. I'm not slandering, I'm asking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 23:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1868f10a9676a10c$264525$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666315 |
On 9/26/2025 8:24 PM, Python wrote: > Le 26/09/2025 à 19:59, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/26/2025 4:28 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 26/09/2025 à 11:54, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 9/26/2025 9:26 AM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 26/09/2025 à 08:49, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>> Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python: >>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) >>>>>>>>> and the local frequency of its units. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', >>>>>>>>> even if nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that >>>>>>>>> person was born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt >>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>> to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that >>>>>>>> the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home >>>>>>>>> planet, even if that isn't perfectly stable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Never heard of the SI-definition of second? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> TH >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BTW, on which planet are you living? >>>>>>>> It seems very weird. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Growing Earth, he actually believe that also 😂 >>>>>> >>>>>> I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons >>>>>> of evidence, that Earth does in fact grows. >>>>> >>>>> What you call "evidence" is what sane people call delusions. >>>> >>>> That's right, poor stinker. A physicist >>>> or a wannabe physicist - the "logic" is >>>> similar. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> You also believe in a growing Earth? >>> Or a flat Earth maybe 😁 ? >> >> Neither. You're just slandering, like >> always. > > I'm not slandering, I'm asking. How many children have you rapted, poor stinker?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-26 19:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1868e6f57d7ac54f$64881$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666289 |
On 9/26/2025 4:28 PM, Python wrote: > Le 26/09/2025 à 11:54, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 9/26/2025 9:26 AM, Python wrote: >>> Le 26/09/2025 à 08:49, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>> Am Donnerstag000025, 25.09.2025 um 17:52 schrieb Python: >>>> ... >>>>>>> You can only use time, if you know a starting point (in time) and >>>>>>> the local frequency of its units. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As common 'starting point' we take 'birth of Jesus Christ', even >>>>>>> if nobody knows for sure, when or whether at all or that person >>>>>>> was born.Could those who measured the 'time' Usain Bolt used >>>>>> to run 100 m only use 'time' because they knew that >>>>>> the common 'starting point' was the 'birth of Jesus Christ'? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As 'rhythm of time' we usually take the rotation of our home >>>>>>> planet, even if that isn't perfectly stable. >>>>>> >>>>>> Never heard of the SI-definition of second? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> TH >>>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, on which planet are you living? >>>>>> It seems very weird. >>>>> >>>>> Growing Earth, he actually believe that also 😂 >>>> >>>> I have actually spent a LOT of time on that subject and found tons >>>> of evidence, that Earth does in fact grows. >>> >>> What you call "evidence" is what sane people call delusions. >> >> That's right, poor stinker. A physicist >> or a wannabe physicist - the "logic" is >> similar. >> >> >> >>> >>> > > You also believe in a growing Earth? > Or a flat Earth maybe 😁 ? Neither. You're just slandering, like always.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web