From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity


Time is not inherently linear. It is not merely a fourth axis in a fixed spacetime model. Rather, it emerges as both a perceptual and physical construct tied to the rate of change within systems. When this rate of
change deviates significantlyuespecially in contexts involving mass and velocityuit can affect how time passes relative to an observer, producing measurable physical effects. In some cases, this may even lead to gravitational anomalies.

Traditionally, physics has treated time as a dimension much like length, width, and height. This is the foundation of the spacetime model
introduced in EinsteinAs theories of relativity. Yet there exists another interpretation that is equally grounded in scientific observation: that
time is not a fixed background, but a derived propertyua way of comparing
how systems evolve. From the perspective of thermodynamics, timeAs arrow points in the direction of increasing entropy, signifying that what we experience as the forward flow of time is actually a measure of
irreversible change. In quantum mechanics, time behaves differently than
in classical systems, often not even functioning as a dynamic operator in
the same way space does. Even in relativity, the passage of time is not absolute. Instead, time is observed to flow differently depending on
relative speed and gravitational conditions.

EinsteinAs special relativity shows that time slows down for objects
moving at high speeds. The faster something travels, the more slowly time passes for it relative to a stationary observer. General relativity
extends this further, showing that strong gravitational fields also slow
down time. These well-documented phenomena reveal that time is not immutableuit stretches and contracts in response to mass and motion. It
is not strictly linear, but fluid and conditional, dependent on context
and relative conditions. This supports the view that time is
fundamentally tied to the rate of change rather than acting as an
independent dimension.

On Earth, most of our experience occurs within a relatively stable gravitational field, and we tend to move at similar speeds. As a result,
the rates of change we observe appear consistent and synchronized. This creates the illusion of linear, uniform time. However, this uniformity is local, not universal. A practical example is the necessity of correcting
GPS satellite clocks for both gravitational and velocity-based time
dilation. The technology depends on compensating for the slight but significant difference in the rate at which time passes at altitude and orbital speed compared to time on the surface of the Earth.

When we introduce systems involving rapid motion and concentrated mass,
such as helicopter blades, we start to see more dramatic divergence in
the rate of change. Helicopter blades are made of dense material and
rotate at extremely high speeds. Although their tangential velocity is
far below the speed of light, they nonetheless experience minor but real
time dilation. These effects can be calculated using special relativity.
While small in absolute terms, they become meaningful when considered as
a differential from the Earth-normal time rate. The rotating blades are,
in effect, operating in a slightly different temporal frame from the surrounding environment.

Extrapolating from this, if high-mass, high-speed rotation can compress
local time, then it could also produce distortions in inertia and
gravity. This is similar to ideas proposed in theoretical propulsion
systems such as the Mach Effect and the Woodward drive, which posit that inertia and gravitational interaction are not fixed, but functions of
changing energy states and time. In this framework, altering the rate of
time locally could feasibly modify the experience of gravity.

Gravity, in general relativity, is described as the curvature of
spacetime caused by mass and energy. If mass-energy can influence the
passage of time, then the reverse may also be true: manipulating
timeuthrough changes in mass distribution or velocityucould affect gravitational force. This leads to the possibility of creating conditions
that mimic or reduce gravity. In other words, if helicopter blades or
other rotating mass systems can sufficiently alter their local time rate,
they might generate a gravity-like reduction or repulsion. This
conceptual model forms a speculative but not baseless approach to understanding so-called anti-gravity effects.

Some experimental anomalies, like the Podkletnov effect, have fueled this hypothesis. In these controversial experiments, a spinning
superconducting disc appeared to reduce the weight of objects placed
above it. While unconfirmed and highly debated, such results suggest that
the interaction between mass, motion, and local time rates could produce measurable changes in gravitational behavior. Another reference for this
is Eric Laithwaite, a British electrical engineer, became known for his
work with linear induction motors and his controversial claims about gyroscopes and "anti-gravity."

Taken together, these observations support the idea that time is best understood not as a linear axis but as an emergent property of changing systems. When the rate of change departs significantly from the normuparticularly in high-mass, high-velocity systemsurelativistic time dilation occurs, potentially affecting inertia and gravity. While much of
this remains theoretical, the underlying principle aligns with known
physics. The notion that localized time differentials could manifest as anti-gravity is not inherently unscientific. It is a provocative
extension of established principles and invites further exploration into
the true nature of time and its relationship to motion, matter, and the
forces that shape our universe.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Street wrote:

Time is not inherently linear. It is not merely a fourth axis in a fixed spacetime model. Rather, it emerges as both a perceptual and physical construct tied to the rate of change within systems. When this rate of
change deviates significantly-uespecially in contexts involving mass and velocity-uit can affect how time passes relative to an observer,
producing measurable physical effects. In some cases, this may even lead
to gravitational anomalies.

you are using words saying nothing, idiot. A change involves time, which
is linear. A not linear time is not time, hence useless to anything, you uneducated idiot.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Street <street@shellcrash.com> wrote:

Time is not inherently linear. It is not merely a fourth axis in a fixed spacetime model.

Time is what the clock says it is.
Hence it is inherently linear.
If you want time to be non-linear it is up to you to say
what other time standard it is to be compared with.

Jan
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 07/27/2025 04:14 AM, Street wrote:

Time is not inherently linear. It is not merely a fourth axis in a fixed spacetime model. Rather, it emerges as both a perceptual and physical construct tied to the rate of change within systems. When this rate of
change deviates significantlyuespecially in contexts involving mass and velocityuit can affect how time passes relative to an observer, producing measurable physical effects. In some cases, this may even lead to gravitational anomalies.

Traditionally, physics has treated time as a dimension much like length, width, and height. This is the foundation of the spacetime model
introduced in EinsteinAs theories of relativity. Yet there exists another interpretation that is equally grounded in scientific observation: that
time is not a fixed background, but a derived propertyua way of comparing
how systems evolve. From the perspective of thermodynamics, timeAs arrow points in the direction of increasing entropy, signifying that what we experience as the forward flow of time is actually a measure of
irreversible change. In quantum mechanics, time behaves differently than
in classical systems, often not even functioning as a dynamic operator in
the same way space does. Even in relativity, the passage of time is not absolute. Instead, time is observed to flow differently depending on
relative speed and gravitational conditions.

EinsteinAs special relativity shows that time slows down for objects
moving at high speeds. The faster something travels, the more slowly time passes for it relative to a stationary observer. General relativity
extends this further, showing that strong gravitational fields also slow
down time. These well-documented phenomena reveal that time is not immutableuit stretches and contracts in response to mass and motion. It
is not strictly linear, but fluid and conditional, dependent on context
and relative conditions. This supports the view that time is
fundamentally tied to the rate of change rather than acting as an
independent dimension.

On Earth, most of our experience occurs within a relatively stable gravitational field, and we tend to move at similar speeds. As a result,
the rates of change we observe appear consistent and synchronized. This creates the illusion of linear, uniform time. However, this uniformity is local, not universal. A practical example is the necessity of correcting
GPS satellite clocks for both gravitational and velocity-based time
dilation. The technology depends on compensating for the slight but significant difference in the rate at which time passes at altitude and orbital speed compared to time on the surface of the Earth.

When we introduce systems involving rapid motion and concentrated mass,
such as helicopter blades, we start to see more dramatic divergence in
the rate of change. Helicopter blades are made of dense material and
rotate at extremely high speeds. Although their tangential velocity is
far below the speed of light, they nonetheless experience minor but real
time dilation. These effects can be calculated using special relativity. While small in absolute terms, they become meaningful when considered as
a differential from the Earth-normal time rate. The rotating blades are,
in effect, operating in a slightly different temporal frame from the surrounding environment.

Extrapolating from this, if high-mass, high-speed rotation can compress
local time, then it could also produce distortions in inertia and
gravity. This is similar to ideas proposed in theoretical propulsion
systems such as the Mach Effect and the Woodward drive, which posit that inertia and gravitational interaction are not fixed, but functions of changing energy states and time. In this framework, altering the rate of
time locally could feasibly modify the experience of gravity.

Gravity, in general relativity, is described as the curvature of
spacetime caused by mass and energy. If mass-energy can influence the
passage of time, then the reverse may also be true: manipulating
timeuthrough changes in mass distribution or velocityucould affect gravitational force. This leads to the possibility of creating conditions that mimic or reduce gravity. In other words, if helicopter blades or
other rotating mass systems can sufficiently alter their local time rate, they might generate a gravity-like reduction or repulsion. This
conceptual model forms a speculative but not baseless approach to understanding so-called anti-gravity effects.

Some experimental anomalies, like the Podkletnov effect, have fueled this hypothesis. In these controversial experiments, a spinning
superconducting disc appeared to reduce the weight of objects placed
above it. While unconfirmed and highly debated, such results suggest that
the interaction between mass, motion, and local time rates could produce measurable changes in gravitational behavior. Another reference for this
is Eric Laithwaite, a British electrical engineer, became known for his
work with linear induction motors and his controversial claims about gyroscopes and "anti-gravity."

Taken together, these observations support the idea that time is best understood not as a linear axis but as an emergent property of changing systems. When the rate of change departs significantly from the normuparticularly in high-mass, high-velocity systemsurelativistic time dilation occurs, potentially affecting inertia and gravity. While much of this remains theoretical, the underlying principle aligns with known
physics. The notion that localized time differentials could manifest as anti-gravity is not inherently unscientific. It is a provocative
extension of established principles and invites further exploration into
the true nature of time and its relationship to motion, matter, and the forces that shape our universe.

Oh, you'll find many theories do just fine with a clock hypothesis,
i.e. a universal time, then about the differences
space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational, has at least
that the electron-physics has long known that just like kinetics is
different from kinematics that electro-statics and electro-dynamics are different than light and different than nuclear radiation, about mass
and charge and the light-like, where visual light is special. (Electron-physics, hadron-physics, muon-physics, neutrino-physics:
continuum mechanics.)


Yeah, a Fitzgeraldian Lorentzian space-contraction then for the space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational, has
that even in ye olde Galilean that there's heft and otherwise
getting up to explain the Magnus effect when the "heft" after
momentum, which is sort of poorly defined, that classical mechanics
itself needs better "Newton's Zero-eth laws", sort of a "zero-aether
law", in as regards to why classical mechanics itself is rather unfinished.


The wave model as a model of change in open systems is really
rather de rigeur, and that it's both energy AND entelechy involved,
makes for why it's continuum laws instead of conservation laws,
and continuum mechanics instead of quantum mechanics.

Then your Fourth Dimension bit has that, well, first of all,
if space-time is curving then something has to curve it, and,
it's very well verified that it isn't not so that the geodesy
is always current everywhere.



Maybe you should look more at classical mechanics and heft
instead of not having causality in the universe you'd hope
you'd have a theory of.

Time is best understood as a linear continuum.


So, uh, meters per second, or seconds per meter?
And, any actual change in change in change in ...
is always "infinitely-many nominally-nonzero
higher orders of acceleration"? Yeah, I know,
it requires super-classical accounts of mathematics.
Yet, these may be defined, and relayed.


Geometry is Motion / Worlds Turn


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Street <street@shellcrash.com> wrote or quoted:

Some experimental anomalies, like the Podkletnov effect, have fueled this >hypothesis. In these controversial experiments, a spinning
superconducting disc appeared to reduce the weight of objects placed
above it. While unconfirmed and highly debated, such results suggest that

Recent discussions here made me aware that there is in fact one
kind of "gravity shielding" that is not disputed:

An electron and a proton in isolation have a certain mass and,
therefore, weight.

When bound to hydrogen, however, the mass of the atom is slightly
smaller than the sum of the masses of the isolated parts electron
and proton due to what is known as the (negative) "binding energy".

This means that the weight of the bound atom is less than the
weight of its two parts in isolation. It is as if the binding
is "shielding" some of the gravity.

If the binding energy would equal the two masses, the atom would
become weightless. If the binding energy would become even smaller,
the atom might be repulsed by the gravity of the Earth flying away
from it.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Street <street@shellcrash.com> wrote or quoted:

Taken together, these observations support the idea that time is best >understood not as a linear axis but as an emergent property of changing >systems.

Yeah, that all sounds fine and dandy, but at the end of the day, it
really boils down to what kind of predictions you can pull from it
for experiments that differ from what standard physics already says.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 7/27/2025 1:59 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Street <street@shellcrash.com> wrote:

Time is not inherently linear. It is not merely a fourth axis in a fixed
spacetime model.

Time is what the clock says it is.

In the reality. In physics time is what a
relativistic idiot says it is.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 27 Jul 2025 11:14:52 GMT, Street <street@shellcrash.com> wrote:

Time is not inherently linear. It is not merely a fourth axis in a fixed >spacetime model. Rather, it emerges as both a perceptual and physical >construct tied to the rate of change within systems. When this rate of >change deviates significantlyuespecially in contexts involving mass and >velocityuit can affect how time passes relative to an observer, producing >measurable physical effects. In some cases, this may even lead to >gravitational anomalies.

Traditionally, physics has treated time as a dimension much like length, >width, and height. This is the foundation of the spacetime model
introduced in EinsteinAs theories of relativity. Yet there exists another >interpretation that is equally grounded in scientific observation: that
time is not a fixed background, but a derived propertyua way of comparing >how systems evolve. From the perspective of thermodynamics, timeAs arrow >points in the direction of increasing entropy, signifying that what we >experience as the forward flow of time is actually a measure of
irreversible change. In quantum mechanics, time behaves differently than
in classical systems, often not even functioning as a dynamic operator in >the same way space does. Even in relativity, the passage of time is not >absolute. Instead, time is observed to flow differently depending on >relative speed and gravitational conditions.

EinsteinAs special relativity shows that time slows down for objects
moving at high speeds. The faster something travels, the more slowly time >passes for it relative to a stationary observer. General relativity
extends this further, showing that strong gravitational fields also slow >down time. These well-documented phenomena reveal that time is not >immutableuit stretches and contracts in response to mass and motion. It
is not strictly linear, but fluid and conditional, dependent on context
and relative conditions. This supports the view that time is
fundamentally tied to the rate of change rather than acting as an >independent dimension.

On Earth, most of our experience occurs within a relatively stable >gravitational field, and we tend to move at similar speeds. As a result,
the rates of change we observe appear consistent and synchronized. This >creates the illusion of linear, uniform time. However, this uniformity is >local, not universal. A practical example is the necessity of correcting
GPS satellite clocks for both gravitational and velocity-based time >dilation. The technology depends on compensating for the slight but >significant difference in the rate at which time passes at altitude and >orbital speed compared to time on the surface of the Earth.

When we introduce systems involving rapid motion and concentrated mass,
such as helicopter blades, we start to see more dramatic divergence in
the rate of change. Helicopter blades are made of dense material and
rotate at extremely high speeds. Although their tangential velocity is
far below the speed of light, they nonetheless experience minor but real >time dilation. These effects can be calculated using special relativity. >While small in absolute terms, they become meaningful when considered as
a differential from the Earth-normal time rate. The rotating blades are,
in effect, operating in a slightly different temporal frame from the >surrounding environment.

Extrapolating from this, if high-mass, high-speed rotation can compress >local time, then it could also produce distortions in inertia and
gravity. This is similar to ideas proposed in theoretical propulsion
systems such as the Mach Effect and the Woodward drive, which posit that >inertia and gravitational interaction are not fixed, but functions of >changing energy states and time. In this framework, altering the rate of >time locally could feasibly modify the experience of gravity.

Gravity, in general relativity, is described as the curvature of
spacetime caused by mass and energy. If mass-energy can influence the >passage of time, then the reverse may also be true: manipulating >timeuthrough changes in mass distribution or velocityucould affect >gravitational force. This leads to the possibility of creating conditions >that mimic or reduce gravity. In other words, if helicopter blades or
other rotating mass systems can sufficiently alter their local time rate, >they might generate a gravity-like reduction or repulsion. This
conceptual model forms a speculative but not baseless approach to >understanding so-called anti-gravity effects.

Some experimental anomalies, like the Podkletnov effect, have fueled this >hypothesis. In these controversial experiments, a spinning
superconducting disc appeared to reduce the weight of objects placed
above it. While unconfirmed and highly debated, such results suggest that >the interaction between mass, motion, and local time rates could produce >measurable changes in gravitational behavior. Another reference for this
is Eric Laithwaite, a British electrical engineer, became known for his
work with linear induction motors and his controversial claims about >gyroscopes and "anti-gravity."

Taken together, these observations support the idea that time is best >understood not as a linear axis but as an emergent property of changing >systems. When the rate of change departs significantly from the >normuparticularly in high-mass, high-velocity systemsurelativistic time >dilation occurs, potentially affecting inertia and gravity. While much of >this remains theoretical, the underlying principle aligns with known >physics. The notion that localized time differentials could manifest as >anti-gravity is not inherently unscientific. It is a provocative
extension of established principles and invites further exploration into
the true nature of time and its relationship to motion, matter, and the >forces that shape our universe.

You went through soooo much posting this that you are not clear in
your posting, and contains incorrect statements...like for example:
mass and energy - curvature - gravity.

You wrote: Gravity, in general relativity, is described as the
curvature of spacetime


but that is not correct.

Gravity is NOT the curvature, it IS the

RESULT of the curvature.


i hope you don't teach dis stuff in skool...

garbage in...


results in rockets exploding during launch.


Gravity is NOT the "curvature", it IS the

*RESULT* of the curvature.



re+sult
/r?'z?lt/
noun
a consequence, effect, or outcome of something.
"the tower collapsed as a result of safety violations"

Gravity is NOT the "curvature", it IS the

*RESULT* of the curvature.

a consequence, effect, or outcome of something.



NOT the something, but the OUTCOME of something.


Would you believe...
no one told the teacher
what were her odds
of her dying in the
rocket ship!

The teacher died because the physics theachesr don't
understand...Physics!

The consequence of stupid teachers.


The people that work at NASA cheated in class! They bought the answers
to the test. They didn't do the homework.


OceanGate Netflix






--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Sonntag000027, 27.07.2025 um 18:03 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 7/27/2025 1:59 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Street <street@shellcrash.com> wrote:

Time is not inherently linear. It is not merely a fourth axis in a fixed >>> spacetime model.

Time is what the clock says it is.

In the reality. In physics time is what a
relativistic idiot says it-a is.

A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which
happens at a known fixed frequency.

But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.


Sure, we usually assume, that a day is 24 hours long.

But 'hour' was derived from the 24th part of a day.

We have some right to assume, that the rotation of Earth does not change abruptly or even slowly, hence we are entitled to assume, that the day
has always the same length.

But this is difficult to prove, if the Earth itself is also our main
'clock'.

Very long ago every noon some markings were carved into the early form
of a calendar.

These days were counted and we have this early calendar as an early form
of a clock.

Today much shorter intervals are countable and we have much better clocks.

But still we count events and calculate some sort of time values.

But most likely nature doesn't care about our clocks.


TH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:

A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which
happens at a known fixed frequency.

But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.

There is no alternative to this definition.

Sure, we usually assume, that a day is 24 hours long.

But 'hour' was derived from the 24th part of a day.

A _mean_ solar day is 24ria60ria60 seconds = 86400 seconds.
For a very long time this was the definition of a second.
But since the standard was one clock at Greenwich, it was
very impractical to sync clocks to the standard.
So the SI standard is based on the frequency of a hyper fine
transition in the Cs atom.

They made the new definition so that the length of a mean
solar day should be 86400 seconds.
But as of 2008 a mean solar day was 86400.002 SI seconds.
This is because the rotation of the Earth has slowed a little
since 1980, and maybe they made the new definition a bit too fast?

We have some right to assume, that the rotation of Earth does not change abruptly or even slowly, hence we are entitled to assume, that the day
has always the same length.

We don't have to assume, we know.

Atomic clocks running according to the SI-definition are more
stable than the rotation of the Earth. So we know that the angular
speed of Earth's rotation varies a little. In the long run it seems
to slow down.

The rate of the TAI is defined by an SI clock on the geoid.

As of 1 Jan 1972 the UTC was defined to be 10 seconds behind
the TAI. Leap seconds are inserted in UTC to keep the mean sun in
the prime meridian at 12:00.00 UTC. As of 1 Jan 2017 UTC was
37 seconds behind TAI.

See:
https://www.hko.gov.hk/en/gts/time/Historicalleapseconds.htm

Note that the time between each time a leap second is added varies
between 0.5 year and 5 years, which means that the angular
speed of Earth's rotation varies.

But this is difficult to prove, if the Earth itself is also our main 'clock'.

As long as clocks have existed, "the Earth itself" has not been
the "main clock". If you have a clock showing "local time", that
is that "the mean Sun" is in the south at 12 hours, then the time
showed by a sundial may show anything between 11:44 and 12:16.

That is because the length of a solar day varies between
86379 seconds and 86429 seconds. This is partly because Earth's
orbit is elliptical, and partly because the angle between the
ecliptic plane and the equatorial plane is 23.4rU#.

For centuries the rate of all clocks has been 86400 seconds
per mean solar day.
The solar day varies too much to be used as the time unit of
a clock.

Very long ago every noon some markings were carved into the early form
of a calendar.

These days were counted and we have this early calendar as an early form
of a clock.

Today much shorter intervals are countable and we have much better clocks.

But still we count events and calculate some sort of time values.

But most likely nature doesn't care about our clocks.

But modern people couldn't do without.

TH

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 7/30/2025 10:33 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:

A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which

happens at a known fixed frequency.

But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.

In _physics_ "time" is some gedanken
delusion of some brainwashed religious
maniacs like yourself.
Anyone can check GPS, real clocks have
little in common with your absurd tales.

A _mean_ solar day is 24ria60ria60 seconds = 86400 seconds.
For a very long time this was the definition of a second.
But since the standard was one clock at Greenwich, it was
very impractical to sync clocks to the standard.
So the SI standard is based on the frequency of a hyper fine
transition in the Cs atom.

And, anyone can check GPS or another serious
time system - your ideological absurd is
ignored.

They made the new definition so that the length of a mean
solar day should be 86400 seconds.

A lie, as expected from a lying piece
of fanatic shit. You've admitted many
times that according to your wannabe
definition solar day at a GPS satellite
should be 86400.000034 seconds (AFAIR).


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:33:39 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:

A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which
happens at a known fixed frequency.

But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.

There is no alternative to this definition.

If time in physics is what we measure by clocks by definition, then
your time in physics will always be...imprecise.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Mittwoch000030, 30.07.2025 um 22:33 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:

A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which
happens at a known fixed frequency.

But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.

There is no alternative to this definition.

Time is what makes a clock tick and not the ticks themselves.

Time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

What physicists (or people in general) think or want is totally
irrelevant for nature.


...

TH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.

There is no alternative to this definition.

amazing such new beginner crap out of you; time is not clocks, time flows
with no clocks whatsoever; in this aspect clocks can be anything
transiting form a state to another state, along the macro domain.

then time is not "measurable", but rather *_registered_*; one use time to measure *_something_else_*. All measurements has a *_timestamp_*
associated with. If changes are measured, the least of two timestamps are
to be registered.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

[Replying to sci.physics.relativity only.]

On 31/07/2025 18:08, Moshe Stavropoulos wrote:

Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.

There is no alternative to this definition.

amazing such new beginner crap out of you; time is not clocks, time flows with no clocks whatsoever; in this aspect clocks can be anything
transiting form a state to another state, along the macro domain.

then time is not "measurable", but rather *_registered_*; one use time to measure *_something_else_*. All measurements has a *_timestamp_*
associated with. If changes are measured, the least of two timestamps are
to be registered.

Well said. I'll have to amend my "nobody understands [physics]"...

Indeed, physics is *in* time (proper), or it's not physics.

-Julio

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 31.07.2025 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Mittwoch000030, 30.07.2025 um 22:33 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:

A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which
happens at a known fixed frequency.

But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.

There is no alternative to this definition.

Time is what makes a clock tick and not the ticks themselves.

Time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

What physicists (or people in general) think or want is totally
irrelevant for nature.

This is not physics!
So why are posting to a physics news group?

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:56:16 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:33:39 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:

A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which
happens at a known fixed frequency.

But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.

There is no alternative to this definition.

If time in physics is what we measure by clocks by definition, then
your time in physics will always be...imprecise.

furthermore, you got clocks..whether a sundial, or mechanic clock -
both are based on sun time. and the sun is imprecise.
Then you gots t
t for time is
mathematics...
and numbers don't exist out there.

Time doesn't exist out there.

Time is an optical delusion.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 31.07.2025 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Mittwoch000030, 30.07.2025 um 22:33 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:

A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which
happens at a known fixed frequency.

But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.

There is no alternative to this definition.

Time is what makes a clock tick and not the ticks themselves.

Time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

What physicists (or people in general) think or want is totally
irrelevant for nature.

This is not physics!

Actually I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Why do you think, that time isn't a natural phenomenon?

So why are posting to a physics news group?

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
-a-a a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we
measure.

Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices.

E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a
thermometer.

But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because temperature
also exists without any measurements.

This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an indicator
for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.

Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices.

That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature doesn't
take those measurements into consideration.

If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like. But
don't expect anybody do the same.


TH





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:56:16 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:33:39 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen" ><relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 28.07.2025 20:27, skrev Thomas Heger:

A clock is a man made machine and usually counts something, which
happens at a known fixed frequency.

But time is a natural phenomenon and not at all based on clocks.

In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument which measures "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So "time" is what we measure by clocks by definition.

There is no alternative to this definition.

If time in physics is what we measure by clocks by definition, then
your time in physics will always be...imprecise.

furthermore, you got clocks..whether a sundial, or mechanic clock -
both are based on sun time. and the sun is imprecise.
Then you gots t
t for time is
mathematics...
and numbers don't exist out there.

Hydrogen atoms for example don't have energy levels
without you around to count them?

Jan

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
-a-a-a a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we measure.

Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices.

E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a thermometer.

But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because temperature also exists without any measurements.

This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an indicator
for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.

Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices.

That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature doesn't
take those measurements into consideration.

If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like. But don't expect anybody do the same.

TH

Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my
questions?

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:31:31 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
aaa a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we
measure.

Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices.

E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a
thermometer.

But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because temperature
also exists without any measurements.

This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an indicator
for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.

Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as
something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices.

That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature doesn't
take those measurements into consideration.

If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like. But
don't expect anybody do the same.


TH

Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my >questions?

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There are no instruments that exist that measure time.


What flow of time is it on your watch?


Is Sunday Sun Day? Every day is Sunday.

What day it it? It's sunday.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:31:31 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

If no, post in another news group.

one should not mistaken arrogance for intelligence.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Freitag000001, 01.08.2025 um 22:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
-a-a-a a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we
measure.

Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices.

E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a
thermometer.

But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because
temperature also exists without any measurements.

This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an
indicator for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.

Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as
something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices.

That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature
doesn't take those measurements into consideration.

If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like.
But don't expect anybody do the same.


TH

Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my questions?

Yes.

I told you already, that any quantity in nature is entirely independent
of any kind of measurements.

Since physics is a natural science, physics deals with natural
phenomena, hence also with quantities, which are not measured.

Man made devices like e.g. clocks are not part of nature, hence belong
to the realm, which deals with man made devices.

This is usually called 'engineering'.

Physics is in a way the foundation of engineering, but not equal in
methods and objectives.

Please answer the following questions:

no.

TH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Samstag000002, 02.08.2025 um 08:42 schrieb The Starmaker:

On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:31:31 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
-a-a-a a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we
measure.

Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices.

E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a
thermometer.

But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because temperature >>> also exists without any measurements.

This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an indicator
for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.

Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as
something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices.

That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature doesn't
take those measurements into consideration.

If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like. But
don't expect anybody do the same.


TH

Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my
questions?

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There are no instruments that exist that measure time.

What flow of time is it on your watch?

Is Sunday Sun Day? Every day is Sunday.

What day it it? It's sunday.

Clocks count events of supposedly even frequency.

There are many different types of clocks.

The most simple clock counts only years.
A little more advanced is a calendar, which is used to count days.

But better clocks do exist, which could count much shorter intervals.

But they all have in common, that they are essentially counters, which multiply the base frequency with that number and 'compute' some sort of
human readable time values.

Time is now, what makes these events flow in equal intervals.

That is actually hard to measure, because if time would start to flow
faster or slower, our clocks wouldn't notice that, because they depend
on time, however fast time flows.

TH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 02.08.2025 10:04, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Freitag000001, 01.08.2025 um 22:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
-a-a-a a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we
measure.

Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices.

E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a
thermometer.

But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because
temperature also exists without any measurements.

This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an
indicator for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.

Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as
something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices.

That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature
doesn't take those measurements into consideration.

If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like.
But don't expect anybody do the same.


TH

Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my
questions?

Yes.

I told you already, that any quantity in nature is entirely independent
of any kind of measurements.

Since physics is a natural science, physics deals with natural
phenomena, hence also with quantities, which are not measured.

So according to you, physics is about natural phenomena which
are not measured.

Man made devices like e.g. clocks are not part of nature, hence belong
to the realm, which deals with man made devices.

And since all measuring instruments are man made,
they have no place in physics?

This is usually called 'engineering'.

OK, let me reformulate:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 11:05:00 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On 27 Jul 2025 11:14:52 GMT, Street <street@shellcrash.com> wrote:

Time is not inherently linear. It is not merely a fourth axis in a fixed >>spacetime model. Rather, it emerges as both a perceptual and physical >>construct tied to the rate of change within systems. When this rate of >>change deviates significantlyuespecially in contexts involving mass and >>velocityuit can affect how time passes relative to an observer, producing >>measurable physical effects. In some cases, this may even lead to >>gravitational anomalies.

Traditionally, physics has treated time as a dimension much like length, >>width, and height. This is the foundation of the spacetime model >>introduced in EinsteinAs theories of relativity. Yet there exists another >>interpretation that is equally grounded in scientific observation: that >>time is not a fixed background, but a derived propertyua way of comparing >>how systems evolve. From the perspective of thermodynamics, timeAs arrow >>points in the direction of increasing entropy, signifying that what we >>experience as the forward flow of time is actually a measure of >>irreversible change. In quantum mechanics, time behaves differently than >>in classical systems, often not even functioning as a dynamic operator in >>the same way space does. Even in relativity, the passage of time is not >>absolute. Instead, time is observed to flow differently depending on >>relative speed and gravitational conditions.

EinsteinAs special relativity shows that time slows down for objects >>moving at high speeds. The faster something travels, the more slowly time >>passes for it relative to a stationary observer. General relativity >>extends this further, showing that strong gravitational fields also slow >>down time. These well-documented phenomena reveal that time is not >>immutableuit stretches and contracts in response to mass and motion. It
is not strictly linear, but fluid and conditional, dependent on context >>and relative conditions. This supports the view that time is
fundamentally tied to the rate of change rather than acting as an >>independent dimension.

On Earth, most of our experience occurs within a relatively stable >>gravitational field, and we tend to move at similar speeds. As a result, >>the rates of change we observe appear consistent and synchronized. This >>creates the illusion of linear, uniform time. However, this uniformity is >>local, not universal. A practical example is the necessity of correcting >>GPS satellite clocks for both gravitational and velocity-based time >>dilation. The technology depends on compensating for the slight but >>significant difference in the rate at which time passes at altitude and >>orbital speed compared to time on the surface of the Earth.

When we introduce systems involving rapid motion and concentrated mass, >>such as helicopter blades, we start to see more dramatic divergence in
the rate of change. Helicopter blades are made of dense material and >>rotate at extremely high speeds. Although their tangential velocity is
far below the speed of light, they nonetheless experience minor but real >>time dilation. These effects can be calculated using special relativity. >>While small in absolute terms, they become meaningful when considered as
a differential from the Earth-normal time rate. The rotating blades are, >>in effect, operating in a slightly different temporal frame from the >>surrounding environment.

Extrapolating from this, if high-mass, high-speed rotation can compress >>local time, then it could also produce distortions in inertia and
gravity. This is similar to ideas proposed in theoretical propulsion >>systems such as the Mach Effect and the Woodward drive, which posit that >>inertia and gravitational interaction are not fixed, but functions of >>changing energy states and time. In this framework, altering the rate of >>time locally could feasibly modify the experience of gravity.

Gravity, in general relativity, is described as the curvature of
spacetime caused by mass and energy. If mass-energy can influence the >>passage of time, then the reverse may also be true: manipulating >>timeuthrough changes in mass distribution or velocityucould affect >>gravitational force. This leads to the possibility of creating conditions >>that mimic or reduce gravity. In other words, if helicopter blades or >>other rotating mass systems can sufficiently alter their local time rate, >>they might generate a gravity-like reduction or repulsion. This
conceptual model forms a speculative but not baseless approach to >>understanding so-called anti-gravity effects.

Some experimental anomalies, like the Podkletnov effect, have fueled this >>hypothesis. In these controversial experiments, a spinning
superconducting disc appeared to reduce the weight of objects placed
above it. While unconfirmed and highly debated, such results suggest that >>the interaction between mass, motion, and local time rates could produce >>measurable changes in gravitational behavior. Another reference for this >>is Eric Laithwaite, a British electrical engineer, became known for his >>work with linear induction motors and his controversial claims about >>gyroscopes and "anti-gravity."

Taken together, these observations support the idea that time is best >>understood not as a linear axis but as an emergent property of changing >>systems. When the rate of change departs significantly from the >>normuparticularly in high-mass, high-velocity systemsurelativistic time >>dilation occurs, potentially affecting inertia and gravity. While much of >>this remains theoretical, the underlying principle aligns with known >>physics. The notion that localized time differentials could manifest as >>anti-gravity is not inherently unscientific. It is a provocative
extension of established principles and invites further exploration into >>the true nature of time and its relationship to motion, matter, and the >>forces that shape our universe.

You went through soooo much posting this that you are not clear in
your posting, and contains incorrect statements...like for example:
mass and energy - curvature - gravity.

You wrote: Gravity, in general relativity, is described as the
curvature of spacetime

but that is not correct.

Gravity is NOT the curvature, it IS the

RESULT of the curvature.

i hope you don't teach dis stuff in skool...

garbage in...

results in rockets exploding during launch.

Gravity is NOT the "curvature", it IS the

*RESULT* of the curvature.

re+sult
/r?'z?lt/
noun
a consequence, effect, or outcome of something.
"the tower collapsed as a result of safety violations"

Gravity is NOT the "curvature", it IS the

*RESULT* of the curvature.

a consequence, effect, or outcome of something.

NOT the something, but the OUTCOME of something.

Would you believe...
no one told the teacher
what were her odds
of her dying in the
rocket ship!

The teacher died because the physics theachesr don't
understand...Physics!

The consequence of stupid teachers.

The people that work at NASA cheated in class! They bought the answers
to the test. They didn't do the homework.

OceanGate Netflix

I forgpt to add..Computer Scientist, or AT department...


come on, these guys
who are suppose to read code...

don't know how to read code!!!!


Have you seen their resume?

Python
C
C++
Java
C#
Visual Basic .NET
JavaScript
SQL
Assembly language
PHP
R
Go
Classic Visual Basic
MATLAB
Swift
Delphi/Object Pascal
Ruby
Perl
Objective-C


you can throw in any computer language in
your resume, and they do!

GET THE MAUAL! PERL coders wanted!

Who are these people sending me emails that
say they want to redesign my website???

I don't see HTML on the list?


Oh yeah, i forgot...everybody knows HTML..
and
Python
C
C++
Java
C#
Visual Basic .NET
JavaScript
SQL
Assembly language
PHP
R
Go
Classic Visual Basic
MATLAB
Swift
Delphi/Object Pascal
Ruby
Perl
Objective-C

You're Hired!

Metaverse is hiring.

wats Metaverse?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Samstag000002, 02.08.2025 um 11:36 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 02.08.2025 10:04, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Freitag000001, 01.08.2025 um 22:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
-a-a-a a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There is always a difference between a measurement and the things we
measure.

Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring devices. >>>>
E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a
thermometer.

But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because
temperature also exists without any measurements.

This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an
indicator for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.

Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature as
something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring devices. >>>>
That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature
doesn't take those measurements into consideration.

If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like.
But don't expect anybody do the same.


TH

Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my
questions?

Yes.

I told you already, that any quantity in nature is entirely
independent of any kind of measurements.

Since physics is a natural science, physics deals with natural
phenomena, hence also with quantities, which are not measured.

So according to you, physics is about natural phenomena which
are not measured.

No!

You can measure all those quantities, but that is not a requirement.

Many things in nature are not measurable for one reason or the other,
but do still exist.

Physics deals also with distant stars, for instance, which are too far
away to measure them.

And, of course, we do not decide about existence by measuring something
(or not).>>

Man made devices like e.g. clocks are not part of nature, hence belong
to the realm, which deals with man made devices.

And since all measuring instruments are man made,
they have no place in physics?

No!

Devices belong to a realm, which is not nature. I would prefer to call
that 'engineering'.

Physicists use all sorts of devices, but would not necessarily build them.

This is usually called 'engineering'.

OK, let me reformulate:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
-a-a a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

Physicists use clocks of various forms, technology and size.

But time does not use clocks!

This is so, because time is a natural phenomenon and nature does not use
any man-made devices.

TH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thomas Heger wrote:

You can measure all those quantities, but that is not a requirement.

Many things in nature are not measurable for one reason or the other,
but do still exist.

Physics deals also with distant stars, for instance, which are too far
away to measure them.

once materialized (high amplitude probability distribution) and made
visible, that thing is already measured. You are just another kind of jew,
in Barlin. Jew rob jew, alot of wars between the jews. All wars are jew.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 03.08.2025 08:06, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Samstag000002, 02.08.2025 um 11:36 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 02.08.2025 10:04, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Freitag000001, 01.08.2025 um 22:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
-a-a-a a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There is always a difference between a measurement and the things
we measure.

Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring
devices.

E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a
thermometer.

But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because
temperature also exists without any measurements.

This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an
indicator for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.

Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature
as something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring
devices.

That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature
doesn't take those measurements into consideration.

If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like. >>>>> But don't expect anybody do the same.


TH

Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my
questions?

Yes.

I told you already, that any quantity in nature is entirely
independent of any kind of measurements.

Since physics is a natural science, physics deals with natural
phenomena, hence also with quantities, which are not measured.

So according to you, physics is about natural phenomena which
are not measured.

No!

You can measure all those quantities, but that is not a requirement.

Many things in nature are not measurable for one reason or the other,
but do still exist.

Physics deals also with distant stars, for instance, which are too far
away to measure them.

And, of course, we do not decide about existence by measuring something
(or not).>>

Man made devices like e.g. clocks are not part of nature, hence
belong to the realm, which deals with man made devices.

And since all measuring instruments are man made,
they have no place in physics?

No!

Devices belong to a realm, which is not nature. I would prefer to call
that 'engineering'.

Physicists use all sorts of devices, but would not necessarily build them.

This is usually called 'engineering'.

OK, let me reformulate:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
-a-a-a a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

Physicists use clocks of various forms, technology and size.

But time does not use clocks!

This is so, because time is a natural phenomenon and nature does not use
any man-made devices.

TH

You have still not even tried to answer my questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

Or alternatively:

You which to travel in your car to a town 100 km away.
Your car has no speedometer.
How will you measure your average speed?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Sun, 3 Aug 2025 22:35:14 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 03.08.2025 08:06, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Samstag000002, 02.08.2025 um 11:36 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 02.08.2025 10:04, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Freitag000001, 01.08.2025 um 22:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >>>>>>>

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
aaa a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There is always a difference between a measurement and the things >>>>>> we measure.

Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring
devices.

E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a
thermometer.

But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because
temperature also exists without any measurements.

This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an
indicator for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.

Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature >>>>>> as something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring
devices.

That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature
doesn't take those measurements into consideration.

If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you like. >>>>>> But don't expect anybody do the same.


TH

Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my
questions?

Yes.

I told you already, that any quantity in nature is entirely
independent of any kind of measurements.

Since physics is a natural science, physics deals with natural
phenomena, hence also with quantities, which are not measured.

So according to you, physics is about natural phenomena which
are not measured.

No!

You can measure all those quantities, but that is not a requirement.

Many things in nature are not measurable for one reason or the other,
but do still exist.

Physics deals also with distant stars, for instance, which are too far
away to measure them.

And, of course, we do not decide about existence by measuring something
(or not).>>

Man made devices like e.g. clocks are not part of nature, hence
belong to the realm, which deals with man made devices.

And since all measuring instruments are man made,
they have no place in physics?

No!

Devices belong to a realm, which is not nature. I would prefer to call
that 'engineering'.

Physicists use all sorts of devices, but would not necessarily build them. >>

This is usually called 'engineering'.

OK, let me reformulate:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
aaa a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

Physicists use clocks of various forms, technology and size.

But time does not use clocks!

This is so, because time is a natural phenomenon and nature does not use
any man-made devices.

TH

You have still not even tried to answer my questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

They all use the sun as the instrument. It will be ready on Sunday.
check your calender...when you wake up, change the page on your
calender to the next day. All clocks give solar time.

Or alternatively:

You which to travel in your car to a town 100 km away.
Your car has no speedometer.
How will you measure your average speed?

That is the dunbest question asked on Usenet.

If the town is 100 km away, what difference

what speed one uses to get there????

No need to measure. you get there when you get there.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Sonntag000003, 03.08.2025 um 22:35 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 03.08.2025 08:06, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Samstag000002, 02.08.2025 um 11:36 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 02.08.2025 10:04, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Freitag000001, 01.08.2025 um 22:31 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 01.08.2025 09:53, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Donnerstag000031, 31.07.2025 um 22:16 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >>>>>>>

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
-a-a-a a meaning in _physics_?

If no, post in another news group.

If yes:

2. What is the instrument that measures time?

There is always a difference between a measurement and the things >>>>>> we measure.

Measurements are usually conducted with some kind of measuring
devices.

E.g. we measure voltage with a Volt-meter and temperature with a
thermometer.

But temperature has nothing to do with thermometers, because
temperature also exists without any measurements.

This is similar to any other quantity, because 'device' is an
indicator for 'man-made' and that the opposite to 'nature'.

Since physics is a natural science, we need to think about nature >>>>>> as something, which would exist without our aid or our measuring
devices.

That's why 'measurements' are not natural and that's why nature
doesn't take those measurements into consideration.

If you reject this setting, than feel free to do whatever you
like. But don't expect anybody do the same.


TH

Is there any particular reason why you don't even try to answer my
questions?

Yes.

I told you already, that any quantity in nature is entirely
independent of any kind of measurements.

Since physics is a natural science, physics deals with natural
phenomena, hence also with quantities, which are not measured.

So according to you, physics is about natural phenomena which
are not measured.

No!

You can measure all those quantities, but that is not a requirement.

Many things in nature are not measurable for one reason or the other,
but do still exist.

Physics deals also with distant stars, for instance, which are too far
away to measure them.

And, of course, we do not decide about existence by measuring
something (or not).>>

Man made devices like e.g. clocks are not part of nature, hence
belong to the realm, which deals with man made devices.

And since all measuring instruments are man made,
they have no place in physics?

No!

Devices belong to a realm, which is not nature. I would prefer to call
that 'engineering'.

Physicists use all sorts of devices, but would not necessarily build
them.

This is usually called 'engineering'.

OK, let me reformulate:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
-a-a-a a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

Physicists use clocks of various forms, technology and size.

But time does not use clocks!

This is so, because time is a natural phenomenon and nature does not
use any man-made devices.

TH

You have still not even tried to answer my questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
-a-a a meaning in engineering?

I think, that measurement of a quantity is independent from that
quantity itself.

What timne actually is, that is a question to debate. But clocks have
nothing to do with the 'mechanics' of time at all.

Clocks are measuring devices and belong into a different realm than the measured quantity.

All measuring devices belong into the realm of the observer, since it is
the observer, who is assumed to measure.

The measured phenomena and all of their attributes belong to a different realm, which is comoving with these objects.

It is imho very important to keep that in mind and not to confuse
apparent properties with the 'real thing'.

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

Measuring devices for time are commonly called 'clocks'.

They come in different form, size and technology, but are usually called 'clocks'.

Or alternatively:

You which to travel in your car to a town 100 km away.
Your car has no speedometer.
How will you measure your average speed?

Velocity is alway 'relative'.

If you take the surface as rewference and regard that as stationary,
your velocity is measured in respect to the Earth.

But that is by no means necessary, because you could also regard your
car as stationary and measure the speed of the surface in repsect to
your car.

Or you use Alpha Centaury as reference or the Andromeda Nebula, if you
like to do that.

All of these methods are of equal rights, thou not equal in practicability.


TH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Montag000004, 04.08.2025 um 07:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
...

Devices belong to a realm, which is not nature. I would prefer to call
that 'engineering'.

Physicists use all sorts of devices, but would not necessarily build them. >>>

This is usually called 'engineering'.

OK, let me reformulate:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
-a-a-a a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

Physicists use clocks of various forms, technology and size.

But time does not use clocks!

This is so, because time is a natural phenomenon and nature does not use >>> any man-made devices.

TH

You have still not even tried to answer my questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

They all use the sun as the instrument. It will be ready on Sunday.
check your calender...when you wake up, change the page on your
calender to the next day. All clocks give solar time.

Actually wrong, because the apparent movement of the Sun across the sky
is caused by Earth' rotation.

So: sun dials use the Earth' rotation, too.
...


TH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Den 04.08.2025 08:59, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Sonntag000003, 03.08.2025 um 22:35 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
-a-a-a a meaning in engineering?

I think, that measurement of a quantity is independent from that
quantity itself.

What timne actually is, that is a question to debate. But clocks have nothing to do with the 'mechanics' of time at all.

Clocks are measuring devices and belong into a different realm than the measured quantity.

All measuring devices belong into the realm of the observer, since it is
the observer, who is assumed to measure.

The measured phenomena and all of their attributes belong to a different realm, which is comoving with these objects.

It is imho very important to keep that in mind and not to confuse
apparent properties with the 'real thing'.

You didn't answer the question.

Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

There are only two possible answers, "Yes" or "no."

So what is it?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

Measuring devices for time are commonly called 'clocks'.

They come in different form, size and technology, but are usually called 'clocks'.

Thank you.
So you know that the instrument we use to measure time is a clock.


Is there any particular reason for why you were so reluctant
to give this answer that I had to ask you five times?

Or alternatively:

You which to travel in your car to a town 100 km away.
Your car has no speedometer.
How will you measure your average speed?

Velocity is alway 'relative'.

If you take the surface as rewference and regard that as stationary,
your velocity is measured in respect to the Earth.

Don't pretend you didn't understand that we were talking about
the speed relative to the ground.

But that is by no means necessary, because you could also regard your
car as stationary and measure the speed of the surface in repsect to
your car.

Or you use Alpha Centaury as reference or the Andromeda Nebula, if you
like to do that.

All of these methods are of equal rights, thou not equal in practicability.

Why are writing irrelevant trivialities in stead of answering the question:

"How will you measure your average speed?"

You know the distance is 100 km, so don't pretend you do not understand
that you must measure the "time" to find the average speed.

You know that we measure "time" with a clock.

But if you will measure time, don't you think that
time must be measurable?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Sonntag000003, 03.08.2025 um 22:35 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
-a-a a meaning in engineering?

I think, that measurement of a quantity is independent from that
quantity itself.

there are no measurement purely non-invasive. Hence all measurement are
infact invasive. Some more then the other. You have to put your probes
there, in order to perform the measurement

What timne actually is, that is a question to debate. But clocks have
nothing to do with the 'mechanics' of time at all.

this is correct. There is a reason USA kicked UK out of America 250 years
ago. Never trust limey thatrCOs never seen a dentist.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 09:06:32 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Montag000004, 04.08.2025 um 07:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
...

Devices belong to a realm, which is not nature. I would prefer to call >>>> that 'engineering'.

Physicists use all sorts of devices, but would not necessarily build them. >>>>

This is usually called 'engineering'.

OK, let me reformulate:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
aaa a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

Physicists use clocks of various forms, technology and size.

But time does not use clocks!

This is so, because time is a natural phenomenon and nature does not use >>>> any man-made devices.

TH

You have still not even tried to answer my questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

They all use the sun as the instrument. It will be ready on Sunday.
check your calender...when you wake up, change the page on your
calender to the next day. All clocks give solar time.

Actually wrong, because the apparent movement of the Sun across the sky
is caused by Earth' rotation.

So: sun dials use the Earth' rotation, too.
...

TH

I forgot about rotate time.

So the numbers on the clock don't rotate?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 11:51:25 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 04.08.2025 08:59, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Sonntag000003, 03.08.2025 um 22:35 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
aaa a meaning in engineering?

I think, that measurement of a quantity is independent from that
quantity itself.

What timne actually is, that is a question to debate. But clocks have
nothing to do with the 'mechanics' of time at all.

Clocks are measuring devices and belong into a different realm than the
measured quantity.

All measuring devices belong into the realm of the observer, since it is
the observer, who is assumed to measure.

The measured phenomena and all of their attributes belong to a different
realm, which is comoving with these objects.

It is imho very important to keep that in mind and not to confuse
apparent properties with the 'real thing'.

You didn't answer the question.

Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

There are only two possible answers, "Yes" or "no."

So what is it?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

Measuring devices for time are commonly called 'clocks'.

They come in different form, size and technology, but are usually called
'clocks'.

Thank you.
So you know that the instrument we use to measure time is a clock.

Is there any particular reason for why you were so reluctant
to give this answer that I had to ask you five times?

This is Usenet! No one is required to answer questions. The only
requirement is that when one gives an answer that
the answer is correct, accurate and true.

If someone gives an incorrect answer then it is the duty of one of the
lurkers to correct it.

It's a process you don't seem to understand.

Or alternatively:

You which to travel in your car to a town 100 km away.
Your car has no speedometer.
How will you measure your average speed?

Velocity is alway 'relative'.

If you take the surface as rewference and regard that as stationary,
your velocity is measured in respect to the Earth.

Don't pretend you didn't understand that we were talking about
the speed relative to the ground.

But that is by no means necessary, because you could also regard your
car as stationary and measure the speed of the surface in repsect to
your car.

Or you use Alpha Centaury as reference or the Andromeda Nebula, if you
like to do that.

All of these methods are of equal rights, thou not equal in practicability. >>

Why are writing irrelevant trivialities in stead of answering the question:

"How will you measure your average speed?"

You know the distance is 100 km, so don't pretend you do not understand
that you must measure the "time" to find the average speed.

You know that we measure "time" with a clock.

But if you will measure time, don't you think that
time must be measurable?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 09:17:15 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 11:51:25 +0200, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 04.08.2025 08:59, skrev Thomas Heger:

Am Sonntag000003, 03.08.2025 um 22:35 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
aaa a meaning in engineering?

I think, that measurement of a quantity is independent from that
quantity itself.

What timne actually is, that is a question to debate. But clocks have
nothing to do with the 'mechanics' of time at all.

Clocks are measuring devices and belong into a different realm than the >>> measured quantity.

All measuring devices belong into the realm of the observer, since it is >>> the observer, who is assumed to measure.

The measured phenomena and all of their attributes belong to a different >>> realm, which is comoving with these objects.

It is imho very important to keep that in mind and not to confuse
apparent properties with the 'real thing'.

You didn't answer the question.

Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

There are only two possible answers, "Yes" or "no."

So what is it?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

Measuring devices for time are commonly called 'clocks'.

They come in different form, size and technology, but are usually called >>> 'clocks'.

Thank you.
So you know that the instrument we use to measure time is a clock.


Is there any particular reason for why you were so reluctant
to give this answer that I had to ask you five times?

This is Usenet! No one is required to answer questions. The only
requirement is that when one gives an answer that
the answer is correct, accurate and true.

If someone gives an incorrect answer then it is the duty of one of the >lurkers to correct it.

It's a process you don't seem to understand.

In other words, if you put a gun to somebody's head and you tell them
they must answer the question or die...
they are still not required not to answer the question.


What's your crypto password?

Is there any particular reason for why you were so reluctant
to give this answer that I had to ask you five times?

YOU ARE NOT GETTING MY MILLION DOLLARS!!!!


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 09:06:32 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Montag000004, 04.08.2025 um 07:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
...

Devices belong to a realm, which is not nature. I would prefer to call >>>>> that 'engineering'.

Physicists use all sorts of devices, but would not necessarily build them.

This is usually called 'engineering'.

OK, let me reformulate:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
-a-a-a a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time? --------------------------------------------------

Hunger mostly.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 04/08/2025 |a 19:12, squalk a |-crit :

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 09:06:32 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Montag000004, 04.08.2025 um 07:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
...

Devices belong to a realm, which is not nature. I would prefer to call >>>>>> that 'engineering'.

Physicists use all sorts of devices, but would not necessarily build them.

This is usually called 'engineering'.

OK, let me reformulate:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
-a-a-a a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

--------------------------------------------------

Hunger mostly.

Good one!


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 09:11:22 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 09:06:32 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Montag000004, 04.08.2025 um 07:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
...

Devices belong to a realm, which is not nature. I would prefer to call >>>>> that 'engineering'.

Physicists use all sorts of devices, but would not necessarily build them.

This is usually called 'engineering'.

OK, let me reformulate:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
aaa a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

Physicists use clocks of various forms, technology and size.

But time does not use clocks!

This is so, because time is a natural phenomenon and nature does not use >>>>> any man-made devices.

TH

You have still not even tried to answer my questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

They all use the sun as the instrument. It will be ready on Sunday.
check your calender...when you wake up, change the page on your
calender to the next day. All clocks give solar time.

Actually wrong, because the apparent movement of the Sun across the sky
is caused by Earth' rotation.

So: sun dials use the Earth' rotation, too.
...


TH

I forgot about rotate time.

But the earth has no force of it's own to rotate around the sun...so
something else is happening here...it is the sun that rotates the
earth to keep solar time.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 12:40:02 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 09:11:22 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 09:06:32 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Montag000004, 04.08.2025 um 07:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
...

Devices belong to a realm, which is not nature. I would prefer to call >>>>>> that 'engineering'.

Physicists use all sorts of devices, but would not necessarily build them.

This is usually called 'engineering'.

OK, let me reformulate:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
aaa a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

Physicists use clocks of various forms, technology and size.

But time does not use clocks!

This is so, because time is a natural phenomenon and nature does not use >>>>>> any man-made devices.

TH

You have still not even tried to answer my questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

They all use the sun as the instrument. It will be ready on Sunday.
check your calender...when you wake up, change the page on your
calender to the next day. All clocks give solar time.

Actually wrong, because the apparent movement of the Sun across the sky >>>is caused by Earth' rotation.

So: sun dials use the Earth' rotation, too.
...


TH

I forgot about rotate time.

But the earth has no force of it's own to rotate around the sun...so >something else is happening here...it is the sun that rotates the
earth to keep solar time.

But you are probaly using the wrong word, you must mean the earth
...spins.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Montag000004, 04.08.2025 um 16:33 schrieb Percival Dudorov:

Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Sonntag000003, 03.08.2025 um 22:35 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
-a-a a meaning in engineering?

I think, that measurement of a quantity is independent from that
quantity itself.

there are no measurement purely non-invasive. Hence all measurement are infact invasive. Some more then the other. You have to put your probes
there, in order to perform the measurement

You didn't understand my point.

I meant, that time is not based on clocks, because clocks are man made
and time is not.

The 'real thing' is an entirely different thing than the model
describing it.

The one who makes models is called 'observer' and that's the one who
measures and uses devices like clocks.

But that has nothing to do with how time actually functions as a natural phenomenon.

This is obviously the case, because clocks had in former times tiny
cogwheels inside.

And it makes no sense whatsoever to assume, that there are numerous
cogwheels in nature.

How time functions is actually an interesting question. But that has
nothing to do with how clocks operate.

TH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Montag000004, 04.08.2025 um 16:33 schrieb Percival Dudorov:

there are no measurement purely non-invasive. Hence all measurement are
infact invasive. Some more then the other. You have to put your probes
there, in order to perform the measurement

You didn't understand my point.

I meant, that time is not based on clocks, because clocks are man made
and time is not.

we undrestand you perfectly, and you are correct. Time is Entropy, builtin
the characteristics of the macro scale of this world.

then stop pushing crap about measurements. We dont accept crap in physics.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 22:43:01 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 12:40:02 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 09:11:22 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 09:06:32 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Montag000004, 04.08.2025 um 07:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
...

Devices belong to a realm, which is not nature. I would prefer to call >>>>>>> that 'engineering'.

Physicists use all sorts of devices, but would not necessarily build them.

This is usually called 'engineering'.

OK, let me reformulate:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
aaa a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

Physicists use clocks of various forms, technology and size.

But time does not use clocks!

This is so, because time is a natural phenomenon and nature does not use
any man-made devices.

TH

You have still not even tried to answer my questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

They all use the sun as the instrument. It will be ready on Sunday.
check your calender...when you wake up, change the page on your
calender to the next day. All clocks give solar time.

Actually wrong, because the apparent movement of the Sun across the sky >>>>is caused by Earth' rotation.

So: sun dials use the Earth' rotation, too.
...


TH

I forgot about rotate time.

But the earth has no force of it's own to rotate around the sun...so >>something else is happening here...it is the sun that rotates the
earth to keep solar time.

But you are probaly using the wrong word, you must mean the earth
...spins.

Whether you use 'spin' or 'rotation'...the earth does not the
capabilities to spin on it's own...it is the Sun that spins the
earth..

that which makes the wheels of a clock turn.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 22:43:01 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 12:40:02 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 09:11:22 -0700, The Starmaker >><starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 09:06:32 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Montag000004, 04.08.2025 um 07:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
...

Devices belong to a realm, which is not nature. I would prefer to call
that 'engineering'.

Physicists use all sorts of devices, but would not necessarily build them.

This is usually called 'engineering'.

OK, let me reformulate:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time? >>>>>>>

Physicists use clocks of various forms, technology and size.

But time does not use clocks!

This is so, because time is a natural phenomenon and nature does not use
any man-made devices.

TH

You have still not even tried to answer my questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

They all use the sun as the instrument. It will be ready on Sunday. >>>>> check your calender...when you wake up, change the page on your
calender to the next day. All clocks give solar time.

Actually wrong, because the apparent movement of the Sun across the sky >>>>is caused by Earth' rotation.

So: sun dials use the Earth' rotation, too.
...


TH

I forgot about rotate time.

But the earth has no force of it's own to rotate around the sun...so >>something else is happening here...it is the sun that rotates the
earth to keep solar time.

But you are probaly using the wrong word, you must mean the earth
...spins.

Whether you use 'spin' or 'rotation'...the earth does not the
capabilities to spin on it's own...it is the Sun that spins the
earth..

that which makes the wheels of a clock turn.

i guess if the earth stop spinning it would be Sunday...everyday.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 12:40:02 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 09:11:22 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 09:06:32 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Montag000004, 04.08.2025 um 07:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
...

Devices belong to a realm, which is not nature. I would prefer to call >>>>>> that 'engineering'.

Physicists use all sorts of devices, but would not necessarily build them.

This is usually called 'engineering'.

OK, let me reformulate:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

Physicists use clocks of various forms, technology and size.

But time does not use clocks!

This is so, because time is a natural phenomenon and nature does not use
any man-made devices.

TH

You have still not even tried to answer my questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

They all use the sun as the instrument. It will be ready on Sunday.
check your calender...when you wake up, change the page on your
calender to the next day. All clocks give solar time.

Actually wrong, because the apparent movement of the Sun across the sky >>>is caused by Earth' rotation.

So: sun dials use the Earth' rotation, too.
...


TH

I forgot about rotate time.

But the earth has no force of it's own to rotate around the sun...so >something else is happening here...it is the sun that rotates the
earth to keep solar time.

But you are probaly using the wrong word, you must mean the earth
...spins.

Let me put it this way..

a sundial is not a earth clock, it's a sun clock.

It measures the shadow of the sun...a solar solar clock.

Not an earth clock.

All time on earth is determined by the Sun.

So, if the sun is up there...

or over there..

or on the otherside..

Why do you confuse an earth clock with Time? Sun time??


A earth clock is just a highly sophiscated sundial...

I'm not even sure the sun is trying to tell you what time it is.


When the sun is up there...it is just 'up there', dats it!

It's is not 12 o'clock, dat another word for up there!


What's up there? it's on minute past up there!

OH MAN, I'M LATE! I GOTTA GO BEFORE IT GOES DOWN THERE!!!

don't worry about it, you got plenty of time..

Germans call it rotation.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Donnerstag000007, 07.08.2025 um 19:12 schrieb The Starmaker:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 12:40:02 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 09:11:22 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 09:06:32 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Montag000004, 04.08.2025 um 07:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
...

Devices belong to a realm, which is not nature. I would prefer to call >>>>>>>> that 'engineering'.

Physicists use all sorts of devices, but would not necessarily build them.

This is usually called 'engineering'.

OK, let me reformulate:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time? >>>>>>>>

Physicists use clocks of various forms, technology and size.

But time does not use clocks!

This is so, because time is a natural phenomenon and nature does not use
any man-made devices.

TH

You have still not even tried to answer my questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

They all use the sun as the instrument. It will be ready on Sunday. >>>>>> check your calender...when you wake up, change the page on your
calender to the next day. All clocks give solar time.

Actually wrong, because the apparent movement of the Sun across the sky >>>>> is caused by Earth' rotation.

So: sun dials use the Earth' rotation, too.
...


TH

I forgot about rotate time.

But the earth has no force of it's own to rotate around the sun...so
something else is happening here...it is the sun that rotates the
earth to keep solar time.

But you are probaly using the wrong word, you must mean the earth
...spins.

Let me put it this way..

a sundial is not a earth clock, it's a sun clock.

It measures the shadow of the sun...a solar solar clock.

Not an earth clock.

NO!!!

The shadow moves at the sun-clock, because the Earth rotates (not the Sun).

This is why a sun-clock measures actually Earth' rotation (in respect to
the Sun).>

All time on earth is determined by the Sun.

So, if the sun is up there...

or over there..

or on the otherside..

Why do you confuse an earth clock with Time? Sun time??

A earth clock is just a highly sophiscated sundial...

I'm not even sure the sun is trying to tell you what time it is.

????


TH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 06:20:33 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Donnerstag000007, 07.08.2025 um 19:12 schrieb The Starmaker:

The Starmaker wrote:

On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 12:40:02 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 09:11:22 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 09:06:32 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Montag000004, 04.08.2025 um 07:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
...

Devices belong to a realm, which is not nature. I would prefer to call
that 'engineering'.

Physicists use all sorts of devices, but would not necessarily build them.

This is usually called 'engineering'.

OK, let me reformulate:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time? >>>>>>>>>

Physicists use clocks of various forms, technology and size. >>>>>>>>>
But time does not use clocks!

This is so, because time is a natural phenomenon and nature does not use
any man-made devices.

TH

You have still not even tried to answer my questions:

1. Do you think that "time" must be measurable to have
a meaning in engineering?

2. What is the instrument that engineers use to measures time?

They all use the sun as the instrument. It will be ready on Sunday. >>>>>>> check your calender...when you wake up, change the page on your
calender to the next day. All clocks give solar time.

Actually wrong, because the apparent movement of the Sun across the sky >>>>>> is caused by Earth' rotation.

So: sun dials use the Earth' rotation, too.
...


TH

I forgot about rotate time.

But the earth has no force of it's own to rotate around the sun...so
something else is happening here...it is the sun that rotates the
earth to keep solar time.

But you are probaly using the wrong word, you must mean the earth
...spins.

Let me put it this way..

a sundial is not a earth clock, it's a sun clock.

It measures the shadow of the sun...a solar solar clock.

Not an earth clock.

NO!!!

The shadow moves at the sun-clock, because the Earth rotates (not the Sun).

This is why a sun-clock measures actually Earth' rotation (in respect to
the Sun).>

Isn't the earth a cogwheel? Otherwise, What makes the earth...rotate?

What machine gives the earth's it's motion?

This...clock machine?

All time on earth is determined by the Sun.

So, if the sun is up there...

or over there..

or on the otherside..

Why do you confuse an earth clock with Time? Sun time??


A earth clock is just a highly sophiscated sundial...

I'm not even sure the sun is trying to tell you what time it is.

????

Welcome to the machine...

You're too close to the clock to see the machinery....

TH

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Montag000011, 11.08.2025 um 08:34 schrieb The Starmaker:

Actually wrong, because the apparent movement of the Sun across the sky >>>>>>> is caused by Earth' rotation.

So: sun dials use the Earth' rotation, too.
...


TH

I forgot about rotate time.

But the earth has no force of it's own to rotate around the sun...so >>>>> something else is happening here...it is the sun that rotates the
earth to keep solar time.

But you are probaly using the wrong word, you must mean the earth
...spins.

Let me put it this way..

a sundial is not a earth clock, it's a sun clock.

It measures the shadow of the sun...a solar solar clock.

Not an earth clock.

NO!!!

The shadow moves at the sun-clock, because the Earth rotates (not the Sun). >>
This is why a sun-clock measures actually Earth' rotation (in respect to
the Sun).>

Isn't the earth a cogwheel? Otherwise, What makes the earth...rotate?

This is a VERY good question.

My own guess was, that we have kind of 'background field', which I
assume to be spacetime of GR.

Matter is now (in my own and selfinvented model) a 'timelike stable pattern.

This 'background field' behaves, as if the 'elements' are actually bi-quaternions, which interact with their direct neigbors, as if they
would multiply with them according to an equation, which is used with quaternions to describe rotations.

The equation goes like this:

p' = q * p * q^-1

The net result for a huge massive body is then a certain rotation of
that huge body.

(see also my 'book' called 'structured spacetime':

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
)


...

TH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thomas Heger wrote:

My own guess was, that we have kind of 'background field', which I
assume to be spacetime of GR.

Matter is now (in my own and selfinvented model) a 'timelike stable
pattern.

This 'background field' behaves, as if the 'elements' are actually bi-quaternions, which interact with their direct neigbors, as if they
would multiply with them according to an equation, which is used with quaternions to describe rotations.

The equation goes like this: p' = q * p * q^-1

not sure, the relativists would say it rotates since the bigbang, which is
a long time to rotate. That's definitely related to the Entropy and
quantum fluctuation, probability distribution and so on.

Every war, every genocide and every terrorist event is directly tied to
the Anglo Saxon Zionist NAZI Talmudic Minority! JUST FOLLOW the fiat
currency that funds all those events!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 08:55:42 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Montag000011, 11.08.2025 um 08:34 schrieb The Starmaker:

Actually wrong, because the apparent movement of the Sun across the sky
is caused by Earth' rotation.

So: sun dials use the Earth' rotation, too.
...


TH

I forgot about rotate time.

But the earth has no force of it's own to rotate around the sun...so >>>>>> something else is happening here...it is the sun that rotates the
earth to keep solar time.

But you are probaly using the wrong word, you must mean the earth
...spins.

Let me put it this way..

a sundial is not a earth clock, it's a sun clock.

It measures the shadow of the sun...a solar solar clock.

Not an earth clock.

NO!!!

The shadow moves at the sun-clock, because the Earth rotates (not the Sun). >>>
This is why a sun-clock measures actually Earth' rotation (in respect to >>> the Sun).>

Isn't the earth a cogwheel? Otherwise, What makes the earth...rotate?

This is a VERY good question.

My own guess was, that we have kind of 'background field', which I
assume to be spacetime of GR.

Matter is now (in my own and selfinvented model) a 'timelike stable pattern.

This 'background field' behaves, as if the 'elements' are actually >bi-quaternions, which interact with their direct neigbors, as if they
would multiply with them according to an equation, which is used with >quaternions to describe rotations.

The equation goes like this:

p' = q * p * q^-1

The net result for a huge massive body is then a certain rotation of
that huge body.

(see also my 'book' called 'structured spacetime':

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
)

...

TH

BUT i already answered the question..the Sun rotates the Earth. The
Sun IS the 'structured spacetime!

Without the Sun, tomorrow would never come!

What is tomorrow?

Without the sun...it will always be nighttime.

Tomorrow is the NEXT night. (not the next day)

There is no NEXT night when it is always...night.


Earth rotation has no bearing on time...without a sun to bear it's
time.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Freitag000015, 15.08.2025 um 19:29 schrieb The Starmaker:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 08:55:42 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Montag000011, 11.08.2025 um 08:34 schrieb The Starmaker:

Actually wrong, because the apparent movement of the Sun across the sky
is caused by Earth' rotation.

So: sun dials use the Earth' rotation, too.
...


TH

I forgot about rotate time.

But the earth has no force of it's own to rotate around the sun...so >>>>>>> something else is happening here...it is the sun that rotates the >>>>>>> earth to keep solar time.

But you are probaly using the wrong word, you must mean the earth
...spins.

Let me put it this way..

a sundial is not a earth clock, it's a sun clock.

It measures the shadow of the sun...a solar solar clock.

Not an earth clock.

NO!!!

The shadow moves at the sun-clock, because the Earth rotates (not the Sun).

This is why a sun-clock measures actually Earth' rotation (in respect to >>>> the Sun).>

Isn't the earth a cogwheel? Otherwise, What makes the earth...rotate?

This is a VERY good question.

My own guess was, that we have kind of 'background field', which I
assume to be spacetime of GR.

Matter is now (in my own and selfinvented model) a 'timelike stable pattern. >>
This 'background field' behaves, as if the 'elements' are actually
bi-quaternions, which interact with their direct neigbors, as if they
would multiply with them according to an equation, which is used with
quaternions to describe rotations.

The equation goes like this:

p' = q * p * q^-1

The net result for a huge massive body is then a certain rotation of
that huge body.

(see also my 'book' called 'structured spacetime':

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
)


...

TH

BUT i already answered the question..the Sun rotates the Earth. The
Sun IS the 'structured spacetime!

Without the Sun, tomorrow would never come!

What is tomorrow?

Without the sun...it will always be nighttime.

Tomorrow is the NEXT night. (not the next day)

There is no NEXT night when it is always...night.

Earth rotation has no bearing on time...without a sun to bear it's
time.

I meant, that 'Sun' is actually a vortex in spacetime.

The real thing is a 'background', which is assumed to be spacetime of GR.

This is real and composed out of pointlike 'elements'.

But it is also invisible and 'dark'.

But you could 'tilt' these elements (a little bit) and one way to do
this is gravity.

Now these 'pointlike elements' are interconnected in a certain way,
which allows 'sideways' rotation.

This aspect is called 'spacelike' in relativity lingo.

In the perpendicular direction this is an axis and called 'timelike'.

If an object is subject to gravity, the environment pulls on the object
and tends to make the worldlines bend a little more from timelike to spacelike.

Hence if an object is subject to gravity, the formerly unseen aspect of rotation becomes visible.

IoW: things start to glow, if there is a very huge material object with
large gravity.

This is now the case for the Sun, which therefore shines, because the
Sun has such a large mass.

But the energy doesn't come from the mass, but from spacetime itself.


TH

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thomas Heger wrote:

But you could 'tilt' these elements (a little bit) and one way to do
this is gravity.

Now these 'pointlike elements' are interconnected in a certain way,
which allows 'sideways' rotation.

how would you know the side, this is nonsense.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Samstag000016, 16.08.2025 um 12:34 schrieb Bubba Kalimahi:

Thomas Heger wrote:

But you could 'tilt' these elements (a little bit) and one way to do
this is gravity.

Now these 'pointlike elements' are interconnected in a certain way,
which allows 'sideways' rotation.

how would you know the side, this is nonsense.

There is one requirement for stability:

that is stability.

If something timelike stable emerges, then we call this this pattern
'matter' (otherwise we call that 'radiation').

Timelike is a direction, which a material object would regard as
timelike, because under that condition the object remains stable.

Now 'timelike' has an inverse we call 'spacelike'.

Therefore, it is a matter of the point of view, what we call 'spacelike'
and that depends actually on the local axis of time.

'spacelike' is kind of 'sideways', while 'timelike' behaves more like an
axis.

What is 'timelike' is simply demanded by the requirement of a material
object, like e.g. the observer, to remain an object.

This direction has also in impact upon what the observer could possibly
see and also, what the observe calls 'universe' (= 'everything the
observer could see').

(This is quite ok, but has the disadvantage, that such a universe is not universal.)

A main different to usual understanding is, that matter could
occasionally pop out of nowhere or disappear into thin air.


TH

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Samstag000016, 16.08.2025 um 12:34 schrieb Bubba Kalimahi:

Thomas Heger wrote:

Now these 'pointlike elements' are interconnected in a certain way,
which allows 'sideways' rotation.

how would you know the side, this is nonsense.

There is one requirement for stability:

that is stability.

If something timelike stable emerges, then we call this this pattern
'matter' (otherwise we call that 'radiation').

completely nonsense. You are a freimaurer.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 07:23:15 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Freitag000015, 15.08.2025 um 19:29 schrieb The Starmaker:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 08:55:42 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Montag000011, 11.08.2025 um 08:34 schrieb The Starmaker:

Actually wrong, because the apparent movement of the Sun across the sky
is caused by Earth' rotation.

So: sun dials use the Earth' rotation, too.
...


TH

I forgot about rotate time.

But the earth has no force of it's own to rotate around the sun...so >>>>>>>> something else is happening here...it is the sun that rotates the >>>>>>>> earth to keep solar time.

But you are probaly using the wrong word, you must mean the earth >>>>>>> ...spins.

Let me put it this way..

a sundial is not a earth clock, it's a sun clock.

It measures the shadow of the sun...a solar solar clock.

Not an earth clock.

NO!!!

The shadow moves at the sun-clock, because the Earth rotates (not the Sun).

This is why a sun-clock measures actually Earth' rotation (in respect to >>>>> the Sun).>

Isn't the earth a cogwheel? Otherwise, What makes the earth...rotate?

This is a VERY good question.

My own guess was, that we have kind of 'background field', which I
assume to be spacetime of GR.

Matter is now (in my own and selfinvented model) a 'timelike stable pattern.

This 'background field' behaves, as if the 'elements' are actually
bi-quaternions, which interact with their direct neigbors, as if they
would multiply with them according to an equation, which is used with
quaternions to describe rotations.

The equation goes like this:

p' = q * p * q^-1

The net result for a huge massive body is then a certain rotation of
that huge body.

(see also my 'book' called 'structured spacetime':

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
)


...

TH

BUT i already answered the question..the Sun rotates the Earth. The
Sun IS the 'structured spacetime!

Without the Sun, tomorrow would never come!

What is tomorrow?

Without the sun...it will always be nighttime.

Tomorrow is the NEXT night. (not the next day)

There is no NEXT night when it is always...night.


Earth rotation has no bearing on time...without a sun to bear it's
time.

I meant, that 'Sun' is actually a vortex in spacetime.

The real thing is a 'background', which is assumed to be spacetime of GR.

This is real and composed out of pointlike 'elements'.

But it is also invisible and 'dark'.

But you could 'tilt' these elements (a little bit) and one way to do
this is gravity.

Now these 'pointlike elements' are interconnected in a certain way,
which allows 'sideways' rotation.

This aspect is called 'spacelike' in relativity lingo.

In the perpendicular direction this is an axis and called 'timelike'.

If an object is subject to gravity, the environment pulls on the object
and tends to make the worldlines bend a little more from timelike to >spacelike.

Hence if an object is subject to gravity, the formerly unseen aspect of >rotation becomes visible.

IoW: things start to glow, if there is a very huge material object with >large gravity.

This is now the case for the Sun, which therefore shines, because the
Sun has such a large mass.

But the energy doesn't come from the mass, but from spacetime itself.

wat are you sayin? are you high?? E=M, not T=E

I don't get a sunburn from ...spacetime.


Are you...spacedout?

you've must be smoking what I've been selling.

i'm rasing my prices!

TH

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Sonntag000017, 17.08.2025 um 15:07 schrieb Bowen Metrofanis:

Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Samstag000016, 16.08.2025 um 12:34 schrieb Bubba Kalimahi:

Thomas Heger wrote:

Now these 'pointlike elements' are interconnected in a certain way,
which allows 'sideways' rotation.

how would you know the side, this is nonsense.

There is one requirement for stability:

that is stability.

If something timelike stable emerges, then we call this this pattern
'matter' (otherwise we call that 'radiation').

completely nonsense. You are a freimaurer.

Both: no.

'Nonsense' is actually a pssibility. That's why you call it 'hypothesis'.


TH


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Montag000018, 18.08.2025 um 07:17 schrieb The Starmaker:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 07:23:15 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Freitag000015, 15.08.2025 um 19:29 schrieb The Starmaker:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 08:55:42 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Montag000011, 11.08.2025 um 08:34 schrieb The Starmaker:

Actually wrong, because the apparent movement of the Sun across the sky
is caused by Earth' rotation.

So: sun dials use the Earth' rotation, too.
...


TH

I forgot about rotate time.

But the earth has no force of it's own to rotate around the sun...so >>>>>>>>> something else is happening here...it is the sun that rotates the >>>>>>>>> earth to keep solar time.

But you are probaly using the wrong word, you must mean the earth >>>>>>>> ...spins.

Let me put it this way..

a sundial is not a earth clock, it's a sun clock.

It measures the shadow of the sun...a solar solar clock.

Not an earth clock.

NO!!!

The shadow moves at the sun-clock, because the Earth rotates (not the Sun).

This is why a sun-clock measures actually Earth' rotation (in respect to >>>>>> the Sun).>

Isn't the earth a cogwheel? Otherwise, What makes the earth...rotate? >>>>

This is a VERY good question.

My own guess was, that we have kind of 'background field', which I
assume to be spacetime of GR.

Matter is now (in my own and selfinvented model) a 'timelike stable pattern.

This 'background field' behaves, as if the 'elements' are actually
bi-quaternions, which interact with their direct neigbors, as if they
would multiply with them according to an equation, which is used with
quaternions to describe rotations.

The equation goes like this:

p' = q * p * q^-1

The net result for a huge massive body is then a certain rotation of
that huge body.

(see also my 'book' called 'structured spacetime':

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
)


...

TH

BUT i already answered the question..the Sun rotates the Earth. The
Sun IS the 'structured spacetime!

Without the Sun, tomorrow would never come!

What is tomorrow?

Without the sun...it will always be nighttime.

Tomorrow is the NEXT night. (not the next day)

There is no NEXT night when it is always...night.


Earth rotation has no bearing on time...without a sun to bear it's
time.

I meant, that 'Sun' is actually a vortex in spacetime.

The real thing is a 'background', which is assumed to be spacetime of GR.

This is real and composed out of pointlike 'elements'.

But it is also invisible and 'dark'.

But you could 'tilt' these elements (a little bit) and one way to do
this is gravity.

Now these 'pointlike elements' are interconnected in a certain way,
which allows 'sideways' rotation.

This aspect is called 'spacelike' in relativity lingo.

In the perpendicular direction this is an axis and called 'timelike'.

If an object is subject to gravity, the environment pulls on the object
and tends to make the worldlines bend a little more from timelike to
spacelike.

Hence if an object is subject to gravity, the formerly unseen aspect of
rotation becomes visible.

IoW: things start to glow, if there is a very huge material object with
large gravity.

This is now the case for the Sun, which therefore shines, because the
Sun has such a large mass.

But the energy doesn't come from the mass, but from spacetime itself.

wat are you sayin? are you high?? E=M, not T=E

I don't get a sunburn from ...spacetime.

My assumption was kind of 'dark energy'.

this could be made visible, it the axis of time of that realm with dark
energy gets bent.

Gravity can do that.

And since the Sun has a lot of mass, the Sun has also a strong
gravitational field.

This field would make 'dark energy' visible, hence the Sun shines.

Are you...spacedout?

you've must be smoking what I've been selling.

i'm rasing my prices!

TH

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Montag000018, 18.08.2025 um 07:17 schrieb The Starmaker:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 07:23:15 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Freitag000015, 15.08.2025 um 19:29 schrieb The Starmaker:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 08:55:42 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

Am Montag000011, 11.08.2025 um 08:34 schrieb The Starmaker:

Actually wrong, because the apparent movement of the Sun across the sky
is caused by Earth' rotation.

So: sun dials use the Earth' rotation, too.
...


TH

I forgot about rotate time.

But the earth has no force of it's own to rotate around the sun...so
something else is happening here...it is the sun that rotates the >>>>>>>>> earth to keep solar time.

But you are probaly using the wrong word, you must mean the earth >>>>>>>> ...spins.

Let me put it this way..

a sundial is not a earth clock, it's a sun clock.

It measures the shadow of the sun...a solar solar clock.

Not an earth clock.

NO!!!

The shadow moves at the sun-clock, because the Earth rotates (not the Sun).

This is why a sun-clock measures actually Earth' rotation (in respect to
the Sun).>

Isn't the earth a cogwheel? Otherwise, What makes the earth...rotate? >>>>

This is a VERY good question.

My own guess was, that we have kind of 'background field', which I
assume to be spacetime of GR.

Matter is now (in my own and selfinvented model) a 'timelike stable pattern.

This 'background field' behaves, as if the 'elements' are actually
bi-quaternions, which interact with their direct neigbors, as if they >>>> would multiply with them according to an equation, which is used with >>>> quaternions to describe rotations.

The equation goes like this:

p' = q * p * q^-1

The net result for a huge massive body is then a certain rotation of >>>> that huge body.

(see also my 'book' called 'structured spacetime':

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
)


...

TH

BUT i already answered the question..the Sun rotates the Earth. The
Sun IS the 'structured spacetime!

Without the Sun, tomorrow would never come!

What is tomorrow?

Without the sun...it will always be nighttime.

Tomorrow is the NEXT night. (not the next day)

There is no NEXT night when it is always...night.


Earth rotation has no bearing on time...without a sun to bear it's
time.

I meant, that 'Sun' is actually a vortex in spacetime.

The real thing is a 'background', which is assumed to be spacetime of GR. >>
This is real and composed out of pointlike 'elements'.

But it is also invisible and 'dark'.

But you could 'tilt' these elements (a little bit) and one way to do
this is gravity.

Now these 'pointlike elements' are interconnected in a certain way,
which allows 'sideways' rotation.

This aspect is called 'spacelike' in relativity lingo.

In the perpendicular direction this is an axis and called 'timelike'.

If an object is subject to gravity, the environment pulls on the object
and tends to make the worldlines bend a little more from timelike to
spacelike.

Hence if an object is subject to gravity, the formerly unseen aspect of
rotation becomes visible.

IoW: things start to glow, if there is a very huge material object with
large gravity.

This is now the case for the Sun, which therefore shines, because the
Sun has such a large mass.

But the energy doesn't come from the mass, but from spacetime itself.

wat are you sayin? are you high?? E=M, not T=E

I don't get a sunburn from ...spacetime.

My assumption was kind of 'dark energy'.

this could be made visible, it the axis of time of that realm with dark energy gets bent.

Gravity can do that.

And since the Sun has a lot of mass, the Sun has also a strong
gravitational field.

This field would make 'dark energy' visible, hence the Sun shines.

Are you...spacedout?

you've must be smoking what I've been selling.

i'm rasing my prices!

TH

you know, if you omit all your 'speculations', you would have nothing to
say.

I don't make assumputions or speculations..I give the facts of science
as they are.

The Sun spins the Earth, And dats dat!
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2