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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #671465 > unrolled thread

How is time really organized

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

Contents

  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 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 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> - 2026-07-22 15:21 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#671465 — How is time really organized

2026-07-10 14:32:12.000000000 UTC.
This is time.

We use the calendar to number years and
number days within a year. Then we use clocks
to obtain the precision required within a day.

The system is not perfect, but is good enough
to have been serving us well for many centuries.
Perfection may be common in your gedankenwelt.
In the reality it is very rare if exists at
all.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#671466

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.

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

#671469

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.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#671470

the imbecile Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn extreme stupid once again:

> 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.

you dont even capisce engilsh, you funking idiot. When about to register a 
timestamp, that's an event in physics and everywhere, you disgusting 
putrid sack of subhuman excrement. Get yourself a proper education and 
stop posting crap on usenet. Idiot.

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

#671472

On 7/18/2026 12:40 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 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".


In physics there is nobody interested in the reality.

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

#671474

Den 18.07.2026 06:34, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> 
> In physics there is nobody interested in the reality.
> 

:-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#671483

=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
> 
> On 7/18/2026 12:40 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Natividad Åšlusarski 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".
> 
> In physics there is nobody interested in the reality.


"Oh, really?" 

-- 
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]

#671484

On 7/20/2026 12:55 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
>>
>> On 7/18/2026 12:40 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Natividad Åšlusarski 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".
>>
>> In physics there is nobody interested in the reality.
> 
> 
> "Oh, really?"
> 

Oh, yes. Physics lives with its gedanken delusions.

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

#671486

Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 06:34 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
> On 7/18/2026 12:40 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> 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".
> 
> 
> In physics there is nobody interested in the reality.
> 

I'm actually not quite sure what an 'event stamp' could possibly be.

Usually points in space do not carry clocks or labels.

TH

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

#671490

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> In physics there is nobody interested in the reality.
>> 
>> 
> I'm actually not quite sure what an 'event stamp' could possibly be.
> 
> Usually points in space do not carry clocks or labels.

imbecile, you are making points in space outside the spacetime. Neither 
this cretin doesnt undrestand what spacetime is. Let me guess, you too are 
half german, historically

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

#671545

Am Montag000020, 20.07.2026 um 12:12 schrieb Ivo Balakirev:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>>> In physics there is nobody interested in the reality.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm actually not quite sure what an 'event stamp' could possibly be.
>>
>> Usually points in space do not carry clocks or labels.
> 
> imbecile, you are making points in space outside the spacetime. Neither
> this cretin doesnt undrestand what spacetime is. Let me guess, you too are
> half german, historically

Well I live in Berlin, Germany, and have a German passport (only).

But my ancestors came mainly from Silesia, which once was actually a 
part of Austria.

At that time the borders were different and Germany didn't exist.

My hometown was actually 'Altona', today a part of Hamburg (also Germany).

Altona was (until quite recently) the second largest town of Denmark.

Some ancestors came actually from 'Helgoland', which belonged to England.

So, 'half German' is not quite possible, since Germans do not exist in 
halfs.

The ancestors of current Germans, on the other hand, are usually 
distributed over half of Europe (and other parts of the world).

TH

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

#671503

Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 06:34 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
> > On 7/18/2026 12:40 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> Natividad Åšlusarski 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".
> >
> >
> > In physics there is nobody interested in the reality.
> >
> 
> I'm actually not quite sure what an 'event stamp' could possibly be.
> 
> Usually points in space do not carry clocks or labels.
> 
> TH


an "event stamp" is not measured with clocks...

if one wants to know which horse won...'by a nose', you
take a picture of it.

A photo finish.

The whole entire universe is measured frame by frame.

So in one frame, you have two noses that seem equal, but the finish line
is in a different frame of time.
One nose is a little ahead of the other nose at the frame of reference,
relative to the finish line.


Won by a nose.

winner winner, chicken dinner.




-- 
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]

#671594

Am Montag000020, 20.07.2026 um 19:44 schrieb The Starmaker:
  >> 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".
>>>
>>>
>>> In physics there is nobody interested in the reality.
>>>
>>
>> I'm actually not quite sure what an 'event stamp' could possibly be.
>>
>> Usually points in space do not carry clocks or labels.
>>
>> TH
> 
> 
> an "event stamp" is not measured with clocks...
> 
> if one wants to know which horse won...'by a nose', you
> take a picture of it.
> 
> A photo finish.
> 
> The whole entire universe is measured frame by frame.

This is simply not true!

There ain't no way to make photos of the 'entire universe', because the 
universe is REALLY vast.

What we see and actually call 'universe' isn't universal at all, but is 
physically our own past light-cone.

This past-light-cone is actually depending upon our own position and 
ain't universal at all.

To estimate the topology of the entire universe is actually difficult 
and hardly anybody does that correctly.

My own way goes like this:

I take a usual spacetime diagramm as a certain form of an 
Argand-diagram, hence regard the axis of time as local and imaginary.

This axis of time is 'vertical' to the usual spacelike direction (of the 
observer in question). (This is what the multiplication with i provides.)

Now to any observer belongs an axis of time and a perpendicular 
hyperplane of the present.

Now these hyperplanes can have any directions possible and therefore 
also local times, which are at an angle towards each other or possibly 
also pointing in opposite directions.

So: in the 'real universe' the axis of time is NOT universal. Also the 
local direction of time is NOT universal.

In contrast we have to considere, that timelines exist, which point into 
opposite directions.

This topology requires so called 'complex four vectors' (aka 
'bi-quaternions').

Since harly anybody uses these constructs, hardly anybody understands 
the universe.

> So in one frame, you have two noses that seem equal, but the finish line
> is in a different frame of time.
> One nose is a little ahead of the other nose at the frame of reference,
> relative to the finish line.
> 
The 'universes at an angle' are usually not visible.

You can't see or measure them, even if they are there.

TH

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

#671485

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

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

#671487

On 7/20/2026 7:37 AM, 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.

For an ape they don't. For a human they do.

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

#671543

Am Montag000020, 20.07.2026 um 08:28 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
> On 7/20/2026 7:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

>>>> 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.
> 
> For an ape they don't. For a human they do.
> 

Has anybody ever found 'labels' at locations in outer space, which 
state, where you actually are?

Actually: no, since no such thing exists.

Instead, you need reference points, if you want to measure or define 
distances.

Same with time:

time is always (and always was of or will be) 'relative'.

That's, btw, the main reason, why the so called 'big-bang theory' must 
be wrong.


TH

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

#671548

On 7/22/2026 8:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Montag000020, 20.07.2026 um 08:28 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 7/20/2026 7:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> For an ape they don't. For a human they do.
>>
> 
> Has anybody ever found 'labels' at locations in outer space, which 
> state, where you actually are?
> 
> Actually: no, since no such thing exists.
> 
> Instead, you need reference points, if you want to measure or define 
> distances.
> 
> Same with time:
> 
> time is always (and always was of or will be) 'relative'.

Union of Lublin: 1569-07-01
Battle of Lepanto: 1571-10-07
The Boston tea party: 1773-12-16
and so on.

Sorry, dealing with your moronic physics has
completely ruined your contact with the reality.

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

#671595

Am Mittwoch000022, 22.07.2026 um 09:41 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
> On 7/22/2026 8:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Montag000020, 20.07.2026 um 08:28 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>> On 7/20/2026 7:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> For an ape they don't. For a human they do.
>>>
>>
>> Has anybody ever found 'labels' at locations in outer space, which 
>> state, where you actually are?
>>
>> Actually: no, since no such thing exists.
>>
>> Instead, you need reference points, if you want to measure or define 
>> distances.
>>
>> Same with time:
>>
>> time is always (and always was of or will be) 'relative'.
> 
> Union of Lublin: 1569-07-01
> Battle of Lepanto: 1571-10-07
> The Boston tea party: 1773-12-16
> and so on.


You name some events and their usual dates.

Ok, so far so good.

But these dates are by no means universal, because they are all 'Earth 
based'.

But even on our own home planets there exist other systems to write 
dates, which would describe the same events by totaly different numbers.


> Sorry, dealing with your moronic physics has
> completely ruined your contact with the reality.
> 

I would express the same idea with slightly different words:

your moronic reality has completely ruined your contact with physics


TH

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

#671596

On 7/23/2026 7:33 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Mittwoch000022, 22.07.2026 um 09:41 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 7/22/2026 8:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Montag000020, 20.07.2026 um 08:28 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>>> On 7/20/2026 7:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> For an ape they don't. For a human they do.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Has anybody ever found 'labels' at locations in outer space, which 
>>> state, where you actually are?
>>>
>>> Actually: no, since no such thing exists.
>>>
>>> Instead, you need reference points, if you want to measure or define 
>>> distances.
>>>
>>> Same with time:
>>>
>>> time is always (and always was of or will be) 'relative'.
>>
>> Union of Lublin: 1569-07-01
>> Battle of Lepanto: 1571-10-07
>> The Boston tea party: 1773-12-16
>> and so on.
> 
> 
> You name some events and their usual dates.
> 
> Ok, so far so good.
> 
> But these dates are by no means universal, because they are all 'Earth > based'.

Still they are THE time.

>> Sorry, dealing with your moronic physics has
>> completely ruined your contact with the reality.
>>
> 
> I would express the same idea with slightly different words:
> 
> your moronic reality has completely ruined your contact with physics

:)
Agree. I'll keep stuck to the reality, anyway.

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

#671493

Den 20.07.2026 07:37, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Samstag000018, 18.07.2026 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>
>> 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

Does the following make sense to you?

I was at the point in space and time (event):
Position: Latitude 58.328555°N, Longitude 8.567684°E, Altitude 20.5 m
Time:     July 20, 2026 11:01.21 UTC

Is this point in spacetime undefined because
  "spacetime is 'coordinates free'"?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web