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

Groups > sci.physics > #691497 > unrolled thread

The problem with Time

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The problem with Time The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-21 17:24 -0700
    Re: The problem with Time benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-21 21:30 -0400
      Re: The problem with Time The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-21 22:22 -0700
        Re: The problem with Time mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-22 00:26 -0700
          Re: The problem with Time The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-22 00:54 -0700
            Re: The problem with Time benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-22 11:46 -0400
            Re: The problem with Time poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-06-28 15:07 -0700
        Re: The problem with Time benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-22 11:45 -0400
          Re: The problem with Time The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-22 11:25 -0700
      Re: The problem with Time Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-22 11:47 +0000
      Re: The problem with Time "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 20:02 -0700
        Re: The problem with Time "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-06-25 21:07 -0700
        Re: The problem with Time Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-06-26 14:51 -0700
        Re: The problem with Time "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 20:12 -0700
          Re: The problem with Time "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-06-26 21:59 -0700
          Re: The problem with Time Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-06-28 14:01 -0700
            Re: The problem with Time "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 14:45 -0700
              Re: The problem with Time "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-06-28 19:18 -0700
              Re: The problem with Time Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-06-29 13:16 -0700
                Re: The problem with Time "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 14:01 -0700
                  Re: The problem with Time "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-06-30 14:41 -0700
    Re: The problem with Time mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-21 18:36 -0700
      Re: The problem with Time benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-21 21:50 -0400
        Re: The problem with Time mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-21 20:34 -0700
    Re: The problem with Time poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-21 21:02 -0700
    Re: The problem with Time Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 18:58 +0100
      Re: The problem with Time benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-22 17:08 -0400
        Re: The problem with Time Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 10:53 +0100
          Re: The problem with Time Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-01 14:18 -0500
            Re: The problem with Time mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 16:55 -0700
    Re: The problem with Time "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 15:04 -0700
      Re: The problem with Time "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-06-30 15:36 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#692287

"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> do it,
instead of you "Reading the Toran", you should take this
deal, since you, Bert can make this  item (1) to (5) go
away "as you type" if you post something like :
>
"I, Bert got mad and irrational in my response to the posters
in item (1) to (5) because they were laughing at me". -- Bert" .
>
Bert, post a a sentence like that, and then item (1) to (5)
may no longer be posted to reminded you of it.
>
Also, if you do that then the deal will be sweetened in that
you may really deserve a Nobel for you "stopping light 3"
from it's source" as evidence for that will be provide for you.
>
Deal?
>
(1)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, Face-Shitter Glazier wrote:
Harlow Campbell HVAC, Mr.HVAC@gmail.com,
& Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <nobody@gmail.com>:
"I'll be sitting on your faces to take a shit & say: "Open wide".
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
>
(2)
On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, JewPigBert Glazier
said to "benj" <nobody@gmail.com>:
"Reality is you always post under me for you are an ass kisser.
For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser."
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
"Benj, you can thank me in advance". - TreBert. ... addinng
>
(3)
On 03Aug2017:
"benj, you eat shit and your shitty brain is coming out your ears."
>
(4)
On 25Mar2008, Graveyard Vandal Glazier wrote in:
<https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J>
"Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh
when it seeps down on your face". --  Bert
>
(5)
On 24Jun2018 SwineBert Glazier said to
Mark Earnest <gmearnest@att.net> "your nose is
in a shit bucket all the time. Eat shit and you fit" -- Bert

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

#691509

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:25:07 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> The problem with Time is...
> the science guys messed up Time.
> 
> The first mistake they made was trying to measure time...
> 
> they messed it up by dividing Time up in seconds, minutes, hours...nanoseconds!
> 
> 
> What time do you got? You don't got my time...you got the wrong time.
> 
> 
> Then you have ...days, which have nothing to do with time.

A day is a rate of Earth turn for its own overall two times.
How the Earth moves is its own time order... driven by rate.
Because it has two motions... it has two rates.
There is mathematical two times aether science...
manifesting as an overall whole. Like the
terms of a two sided equation. Both sides
manifest...


Mitchell Raemsch

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

#691510

On 6/21/2018 9:36 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:25:07 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>> The problem with Time is...
>> the science guys messed up Time.
>>
>> The first mistake they made was trying to measure time...
>>
>> they messed it up by dividing Time up in seconds, minutes, hours...nanoseconds!
>>
>>
>> What time do you got? You don't got my time...you got the wrong time.
>>
>>
>> Then you have ...days, which have nothing to do with time.
> 
> A day is a rate of Earth turn for its own overall two times.
> How the Earth moves is its own time order... driven by rate.
> Because it has two motions... it has two rates.
> There is mathematical two times aether science...
> manifesting as an overall whole. Like the
> terms of a two sided equation. Both sides
> manifest...

That is because the equation is manifesting in a macroscopic alignment 
which of course means telescopic alignment.

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

#691513

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:50:31 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> On 6/21/2018 9:36 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:25:07 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> The problem with Time is...
> >> the science guys messed up Time.
> >>
> >> The first mistake they made was trying to measure time...
> >>
> >> they messed it up by dividing Time up in seconds, minutes, hours...nanoseconds!
> >>
> >>
> >> What time do you got? You don't got my time...you got the wrong time.
> >>
> >>
> >> Then you have ...days, which have nothing to do with time.
> > 
> > A day is a rate of Earth turn for its own overall two times.
> > How the Earth moves is its own time order... driven by rate.
> > Because it has two motions... it has two rates.
> > There is mathematical two times aether science...
> > manifesting as an overall whole. Like the
> > terms of a two sided equation. Both sides
> > manifest...
> 
> That is because the equation is manifesting in a macroscopic alignment 
> which of course means telescopic alignment.

Is it aligned already? Of course your telescope has its own time.
You mean your telescope on Earth shares the Earth's motions?
Aligning your telescope by moving it gives the telescope its own rate slow
through that temporary slight motion... It starts and ends fast.
But that is an absurd point to make. That is the tiniest
rate affect for driving the overall time factor.
Seriously? What is your point then?

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#691519

On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 3:25:07 AM UTC+3, The Starmaker wrote:
> The problem with Time is...
> the science guys messed up Time.
> 
> The first mistake they made was trying to measure time...
> 
> they messed it up by dividing Time up in seconds, minutes, hours...nanoseconds!
> 
> 
> What time do you got? You don't got my time...you got the wrong time.
> 
> 
> Then you have ...days, which have nothing to do with time.

=====================
in short 
time is not as other dimensions  

it is not independent
it is some agreed upon  kind of motion 
or more accurate 
some conventional  motion 
for common reference
=====
while I was    ^^^16 years of age***
I made for myself the following thought experiment
--
suppose that all kinds of motion will stop
simultaneously allover the universe
say for one billion   years 
(including the electrons in your brain) 
and then at once all the above 
will start moving as before 

now the punch question 
at the above case
will you will be able to notice
what happened just  before ??!!!!

'no more questions …..

==Y.Porat
=====================
--
TIA
Y.P
=========================  

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

#691561

On 22/06/2018 01:24, The Starmaker wrote:
> The problem with Time is...
> the science guys messed up Time.
> 
> The first mistake they made was trying to measure time...

Philosophers talk about time,
Science guys measure time, with clocks eh!

The mistake they made was to believe that
clocks are in any way affected by walking
towards or away from them.

Note that if clocks are not affected
by walking towards them, then the velocity
of light relative to you when you walk
towards the light must be c+v, not c eh!

keith stein

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

#691581

On 6/22/2018 1:58 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 22/06/2018 01:24, The Starmaker wrote:
>> The problem with Time is...
>> the science guys messed up Time.
>>
>> The first mistake they made was trying to measure time...
> 
> Philosophers talk about time,
> Science guys measure time, with clocks eh!
> 
> The mistake they made was to believe that
> clocks are in any way affected by walking
> towards or away from them.
> 
> Note that if clocks are not affected
> by walking towards them, then the velocity
> of light relative to you when you walk
> towards the light must be c+v, not c eh!
> 
> keith stein

Obviously you are no more a philosopher than Starfaker.

The question is not are clocks affected by your motion with respect to 
them but rather is your PERCEPTIOIN of their readings affected. There is 
no aether drift so c+v Is ALWAYS totally stupid and wrong, wrong, wrong.

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

#691722

On 22/06/2018 22:08, benj wrote:
> On 6/22/2018 1:58 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 22/06/2018 01:24, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> The problem with Time is...
>>> the science guys messed up Time.
>>>
>>> The first mistake they made was trying to measure time...
>>
>> Philosophers talk about time,
>> Science guys measure time, with clocks eh!
>>
>> The mistake they made was to believe that
>> clocks are in any way affected by walking
>> towards or away from them.
>>
>> Note that if clocks are not affected
>> by walking towards them, then the velocity
>> of light relative to you when you walk
>> towards the light must be c+v, not c eh!
>>
>> keith stein
> 
> Obviously you are no more a philosopher than Starfaker.
> 
> The question is not are clocks affected by your motion with respect to 
> them but rather is your PERCEPTIOIN of their readings affected.

Of course clocks APPEAR to run slower if you move away from them,
and the APPEAR to run faster when you move towards them. This is
the well understood DOPPLER EFFECT, and if you account for it correctly
then of course you do not require any relativistic time dilation.



> There is no aether drift

Agreed.

> so c+v Is ALWAYS totally stupid and wrong, wrong, wrong.

No! If clocks are not affected by walking towards them, then
c+v is INEVITABLE eh!

                 A<-------- L m ------------->B
                 TA                           TB

As viewed from stationary (laboratory) frame:
                 Speed of light = L / (TB-TA) = c

As viewed from frame of reference in which laboratory is moving to the 
right at v m/s.
Light must travel an extra distance               = v*(TB-TA)
This being the distance B moves as the light travels from A to B.

Therefore speed of light as viewed from frame of reference in which
laboratory is moving to the right at v m/s = c + v

keith stein

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

#692355

On 6/24/2018 4:53 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 22/06/2018 22:08, benj wrote:
>> On 6/22/2018 1:58 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> On 22/06/2018 01:24, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> The problem with Time is...
>>>> the science guys messed up Time.
>>>>
>>>> The first mistake they made was trying to measure time...
>>>
>>> Philosophers talk about time,
>>> Science guys measure time, with clocks eh!
>>>
>>> The mistake they made was to believe that
>>> clocks are in any way affected by walking
>>> towards or away from them.
>>>
>>> Note that if clocks are not affected
>>> by walking towards them, then the velocity
>>> of light relative to you when you walk
>>> towards the light must be c+v, not c eh!
>>>
>>> keith stein
>>
>> Obviously you are no more a philosopher than Starfaker.
>>
>> The question is not are clocks affected by your motion with respect to
>> them but rather is your PERCEPTIOIN of their readings affected.
> 
> Of course clocks APPEAR to run slower if you move away from them,
> and the APPEAR to run faster when you move towards them. This is
> the well understood DOPPLER EFFECT, and if you account for it correctly
> then of course you do not require any relativistic time dilation.
> 
> 
> 
>> There is no aether drift
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> so c+v Is ALWAYS totally stupid and wrong, wrong, wrong.
> 
> No! If clocks are not affected by walking towards them, then
> c+v is INEVITABLE eh!
> 
>                 A<-------- L m ------------->B
>                 TA                           TB
> 
> As viewed from stationary (laboratory) frame:
>                 Speed of light = L / (TB-TA) = c
> 
> As viewed from frame of reference in which laboratory is moving to the
> right at v m/s.
> Light must travel an extra distance               = v*(TB-TA)
> This being the distance B moves as the light travels from A to B.
> 
> Therefore speed of light as viewed from frame of reference in which
> laboratory is moving to the right at v m/s = c + v
> 
> keith stein
> 


if you see a clock 20 feet away,  you are 20 nanoseconds behind the time
it shows, as it takes about a nanosecond for light to travel 1 foot.

if the clock is atomic, with lighted numerics, and your 100 feet away,
then you are 100 nanoseconds late.

If you have 4 clocks around you 10 ft,  25 ft, 50 ft, 100 ft   which
clock is right ?

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

#692372

On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 12:18:35 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 6/24/2018 4:53 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
> > On 22/06/2018 22:08, benj wrote:
> >> On 6/22/2018 1:58 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>> On 22/06/2018 01:24, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>> The problem with Time is...
> >>>> the science guys messed up Time.
> >>>>
> >>>> The first mistake they made was trying to measure time...
> >>>
> >>> Philosophers talk about time,
> >>> Science guys measure time, with clocks eh!
> >>>
> >>> The mistake they made was to believe that
> >>> clocks are in any way affected by walking
> >>> towards or away from them.
> >>>
> >>> Note that if clocks are not affected
> >>> by walking towards them, then the velocity
> >>> of light relative to you when you walk
> >>> towards the light must be c+v, not c eh!
> >>>
> >>> keith stein
> >>
> >> Obviously you are no more a philosopher than Starfaker.
> >>
> >> The question is not are clocks affected by your motion with respect to
> >> them but rather is your PERCEPTIOIN of their readings affected.
> > 
> > Of course clocks APPEAR to run slower if you move away from them,
> > and the APPEAR to run faster when you move towards them. This is
> > the well understood DOPPLER EFFECT, and if you account for it correctly
> > then of course you do not require any relativistic time dilation.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> There is no aether drift
> > 
> > Agreed.
> > 
> >> so c+v Is ALWAYS totally stupid and wrong, wrong, wrong.
> > 
> > No! If clocks are not affected by walking towards them, then
> > c+v is INEVITABLE eh!
> > 
> >                 A<-------- L m ------------->B
> >                 TA                           TB
> > 
> > As viewed from stationary (laboratory) frame:
> >                 Speed of light = L / (TB-TA) = c
> > 
> > As viewed from frame of reference in which laboratory is moving to the
> > right at v m/s.
> > Light must travel an extra distance               = v*(TB-TA)
> > This being the distance B moves as the light travels from A to B.
> > 
> > Therefore speed of light as viewed from frame of reference in which
> > laboratory is moving to the right at v m/s = c + v
> > 
> > keith stein
> > 
> 
> 
> if you see a clock 20 feet away,  you are 20 nanoseconds behind the time
> it shows, as it takes about a nanosecond for light to travel 1 foot.
> 
> if the clock is atomic, with lighted numerics, and your 100 feet away,
> then you are 100 nanoseconds late.
> 
> If you have 4 clocks around you 10 ft,  25 ft, 50 ft, 100 ft   which
> clock is right ?

Aether dimension is unmarked.
Drift is what can't be measured.
Movement through the aether is
absolute but invisible...

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#692288

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:25:07 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> The problem with Time is...
> the science guys messed up Time.
> 
> The first mistake they made was trying to measure time...
> 
> they messed it up by dividing Time up in seconds, minutes, hours...nanoseconds!
> 
> 
> What time do you got? You don't got my time...you got the wrong time.
> 
> 
> Then you have ...days, which have nothing to do with time.

Godfather is not afraid to kill.Allah see to it his people are not afraid to die.At this time the two relate.Also never go to jail.Bert

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

#692293

"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote
that "Godfather is not afraid to die. At this time the two
relate. Also never go to jail like Bert who was in the custody
of Osceola Sheriff Bob Hansell. This is why you should take
this deal, since you, Bert can make these  items (1) to (5) go
away "as you type" if you post something like :
>
"I, Bert got mad and irrational in my response to the posters
in item (1) to (5) because they were laughing at me". -- Bert" .
>
Bert, post a a sentence like that, and then item (1) to (5)
may no longer be posted to reminded you of it.
>
Also, if you do that then the deal will be sweetened in that
you may really deserve a Nobel for you "stopping light 3"
from it's source" as evidence for that will be provide for you.
>
Deal?
>
(1)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, Face-Shitter Glazier wrote:
Harlow Campbell HVAC, Mr.HVAC@gmail.com,
& Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <nobody@gmail.com>:
"I'll be sitting on your faces to take a shit & say: "Open wide".
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
>
(2)
On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, JewPigBert Glazier
said to "benj" <nobody@gmail.com>:
"Reality is you always post under me for you are an ass kisser.
For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser."
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
"Benj, you can thank me in advance". - TreBert. ... addinng
>
(3)
On 03Aug2017:
"benj, you eat shit and your shitty brain is coming out your ears."
>
(4)
On 25Mar2008, Graveyard Vandal Glazier wrote in:
<https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J>
"Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh
when it seeps down on your face". --  Bert
>
(5)
On 24Jun2018 SwineBert Glazier said to
Mark Earnest <gmearnest@att.net> "your nose is
in a shit bucket all the time. Eat shit and you fit" -- Bert

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web