 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / May 2008Time has never been measured physically
So, It does not physically exist. It exists only as an anstract of something elses periodic motion. Just as an inch, or a degree, rely on 'real' other objects to abstract such data from. Who can actually grasp such a simple statement? Aparently not the Einstein worshippers. :)  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman Spaceshit wrote: > So, > It does not physically exist. Did you ever love a parent? Did you measure it physically? Did it really exist? Did you ever (incorrectly) think that relativity is wrong? Can you physically measure you (incorrect) thought? Did it really exist? At least you know know that relativity correctly models space, time, and matter on the macro and cosmic scales. Bravo, Spaceshit, you're starting to get the big picture. Good old Einstein... What'a guy. I'm not suggesting you worship Einstein--heaven, I don't--but you might appreciate his contributions to our understanding of the world around us. :-) > It exists only as an anstract of something elses periodic motion. > Just as an inch, or a degree, rely on 'real' other objects to abstract [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Aparently not the Einstein worshippers. > :) > Did you ever love a parent? Did you measure it physically? > Did it really exist? Yes, I could measure it physically. That is why I could tell when I love some things more than a parent. and some things less. Of course nobody has actually created a measuring system for such unless you count love machines at the beach. :) > Did you ever (incorrectly) think that relativity is wrong? No. I have thoughts parts of it were wrong and beeen proven wrong in such thought, but.. I have correctly thought some parts of it are incorrectly interpreted. And the biggest part is 'time dilations' physical cause. :) > Can you physically measure you (incorrect) thought? Did > it really exist? At least you know know that relativity [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > his contributions to our understanding of the world around > us. :-) Sam, I respect Einstein, I just don't respect what crap has been twisted into supposed reality from his work. (like time travel for one thing) but really Sam, What clock has physically measured time? Not a single one yet. Until such exists, time is still just an abstract. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On May 28, 11:21 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > Did you ever love a parent? Did you measure it physically? > > Did it really exist? [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman If it isn't a real physical thing then it doesn't belong in Physics. Mitch Raemsch ><mitch.nicolas.raemsch@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1492cfcd-209d-4b26-aa16-f8ab5d2559c0@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com... >If it isn't a real physical thing then it doesn't belong in Physics. Not really, The inch is not real, the object that is an inch long is. So the inch blongs in physics but does not belong as a cause for a device malfunction. Abstracts are needed, they just need to be known as an abstract of the physical thing and not the physical thing itself nor a cause for a physical effect. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On May 28, 11:28 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > ><mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman What about an empty space inch? That is real. You are not in reality if you think that time is unreal spaceM. Mitch Raemsch >What about an empty space inch? That is real. The space is, the inch still is not. >You are not in reality if you think that time is unreal spaceM. No, I am more in reality than anyone that thinks time is a real "thing". I happen to know what clocks measure, unlike the silly people who argue with me. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On May 28, 11:35 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman Prove that a certain "size" is unreal. That is rediculous spaceM. >Prove that a certain "size" is unreal. That is rediculous spaceM. No need to prove it, size is not a physical thing. It is an abstract of a physical thing. Man, you just refuse to get it huh? Do you even know what abstract means anymore? SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On May 28, 11:49 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman Size is quantized space. It is real. Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 >Size is quantized space. It is real. The size is an abstract of the real. It is not the 'real' itself. You don't know what an abstract is huh Mitch? You do not deserve any Nobel anythings. sheesh. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On May 28, 12:12 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman The real is a quantity of extension that cannot be denied spaceM. On May 28, 2:28 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > ><mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Not really, > The inch is not real, the object that is an inch long is. OK, so you've got a stick with two marks on it, each an 1/8th inch long, with the marks an inch apart. The stick is not an inch long. The marks are not an inch long. Is the stick between the two marks not real? > So the inch blongs in physics but does not belong as a cause > for a device malfunction. And a device malfunction has to be due to something real, I presume. So there's a spring in it. The spring is real, but the stiffness of the spring is not real, since that's just a number associated with the real spring. (That's exactly like your "inch-long object is real, but the inch that describes the object is not real.") So if the stiffness of the spring should change for some reason, and the clock changes rate as a result, then this is due to something that is not real, since stiffness is no more real than the inch is? Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about? > Abstracts are needed, they just need to be known as an > abstract of the physical thing and not the physical thing itself [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman >OK, so you've got a stick with two marks on it, each an 1/8th inch >long, with the marks an inch apart. The stick is not an inch long. The >marks are not an inch long. Is the stick between the two marks not >real? the stick is, the distance is ( a physical seperation between 2 things) C,mon PD. stop and think about this question. Can distance be a cause for distance to physically change? I am talking about physical causes. Time can not be a physical cause for time (or clocks) to change rate. >And a device malfunction has to be due to something real, I presume. >So there's a spring in it. The spring is real, but the stiffness of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >rate as a result, then this is due to something that is not real, >since stiffness is no more real than the inch is? And again, I am not saying such crap like you put it as. I am saying that the 'stiffness changing can not be the cause of the stiffness changing. Find the dang problem of the clock without telling me it is an abstract causing the same abstract to change. Sheesh! What wall is in your brain to fail to even try to understand such a simple fact? >Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about? Yes, you apparently don't though. I am talking about how an abstract measurement system could not be the cause of the change of an abstract measurement system. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On May 28, 3:03 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > >OK, so you've got a stick with two marks on it, each an 1/8th inch > >long, with the marks an inch apart. The stick is not an inch long. The [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Find the dang problem of the clock without telling me it is an abstract > causing the same abstract to change. Well, here's the problem. You have a certain mindset about what things are real and what things are abstract. These don't agree with what physicists would lay out as the difference, by the way. But then you go further and you *proclaim* that those things that *you* consider abstract and not physically real could *never* be considered to be a physical cause. I know you want the universe to consist of material cogs and wheels and little balls banging on each other and little cables and springs, and only things of this kind being the "real" agents of change in the universe. It's natural for an auto mechanic to desire that, because that's what makes sense to an auto mechanic. And for hundreds of years, even the most esoteric physicists always thought of things in exactly the same way. BUT -- and here is where *listening to nature* is important -- we have discovered that, for a number of really central and important things, nature just isn't structured that way. And it doesn't do a lick of good to insist that it should anyway, and to insist that we haven't got it truly figured out until we can get it to fit into that paradigm. Getting nature to fit into a particular paradigm is NOT the goal of science. The goal of science is to figure out the rules that nature operates by, and to let *Nature* dictate what *our* mental concept of "physical causes" is. You are not ready to do that. That's fine. Just don't ask me to go along. I don't think it's useful. I think you'll find that most physicists would not find your agenda useful. > Sheesh! > What wall is in your brain to fail to even try to understand such a simple [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman On May 28, 2:26 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > If it isn't a real physical thing then it doesn't belong in Physics. What's "real physical thing" in your mind? Is a sound wave a real physical thing? After all, there is nothing to a sound wave other than a pattern of concentration and rarefaction of molecules, where that pattern tends to move in time. So is it the molecules that are real, or the sound wave that's real? Maybe both, if physical things are defined as having certain properties. A wave has certain properties, and a molecule has certain properties. So what would make a molecule any more or any less a "real physical thing" than a wave? PD On May 28, 12:43 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > So, > It does not physically exist. Oooh, such deep thoughts. Momentum has not been directly measured, so it does not physically exist. Kinetic energy has not been directly measured, so it does not physically exist. Mass has not been directly measured, so it does not physically exist. Gravitational field has not been directly measured, so it does not physically exist. Magnetic field has not been directly measured, so it does not physically exist. Temperature has not been directly measured, so it does not physically exist. Force has not been directly measured, so it does not physically exist. So, Deep Thinker, perhaps you can build up physics from those things you think HAVE been directly measured. And then, while you're at it, you can spend a little time explaining why it's necessary to do so. > It exists only as an anstract of something elses periodic motion. > Just as an inch, or a degree, rely on 'real' other objects to abstract [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman On May 28, 12:43 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > So, > It does not physically exist. Oooh, such deep thoughts. >Momentum has not been directly measured, so it does not physically >exist. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >you think HAVE been directly measured. And then, while you're at it, >you can spend a little time explaining why it's necessary to do so. Wow, You are starting to get it. They are all abstracts of a physical thing causing such and they are not physical objects themselves and they are most definitely not a cause for themselves changing such as you have accepted for the time abstract.. and because you allow such abstract to be physical objects, Soon, in your physics world, Each and every one of those will become a dimension and then you can come up with more sh.t like. "The magnetic field changed because the magnetic field changed." :) So far you have nothing for physical causes of time dilation except such circular bullshit. Your final answer still comes out to... Time changed rate because time changed rate. or in another term. The clock changed rate because the clock changed rate. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On May 28, 2:47 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > On May 28, 12:43 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > not a cause for themselves changing such as you have accepted > for the time abstract.. You still haven't defined what is physical and what is not. I'll tell you that physicists feel pretty strongly that momentum and kinetic energy and mass and gravitational and magnetic fields and temperature and force ARE physically real. However, it's plain that what YOU think "physically real" means is different than what physicists think "physically real" means. So here we are. It's plain you don't think some things are physically real that physicists think are. But you haven't clearly defined what you think physically real is. And you haven't made any case for why your definition (which you haven't provided) should be used rather than what physicists use. > and because you allow such abstract to be physical objects, > Soon, in your physics world, Each and every one of those [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman <cnipped even more diversion tactics> Find the "PD try this" post. and then admit you are wrong about all clocks behaving the same. Or... Nevermind. :) On May 28, 3:58 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > <cnipped even more diversion tactics> > > Find the "PD try this" post. Got a link? Try a search on groups.google.com to find it. > and then admit you are wrong about all clocks behaving the same. Why would I do that? > Or... > Nevermind. > :) >Got a link? I can post it in this thread. it is short. Here it is. (I fixed it a tiny bit but essentially it is the same.) Take your bucket of water with the hole in it, so it drips. Time how long it takes to empty with a stopwatch connected to the bucket. Take the same bucket and same watch, tie a rope to the handle of the bucket. start the dripping and start the watch. and spin it around your head until it stops dripping and record the time. So, your water clock just laughed at you and your all clocks change the same rate. If you don't try it and after it say damn, Spaceshit is right about the clocks not all changing rate the same. It is your loss, not mine. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On May 28, 10:42 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > >Got a link? > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman James,I don't believe it !. I was paying a flying visit to relativity and certainly did not think I would see something from you. In any case,good to see you. >James,I don't believe it !. >I was paying a flying visit to relativity and certainly did not think >I would see something from you. >In any case,good to see you. Hi there Gerald! Glad to see you land, even if only for a tiny bit of absolute time. :) It is amazing how some here are still so bullheaded ignorant that they have lost any new thought processes that could occur. Dang brainwashing.. It is amazing. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On May 30, 4:51 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > >James,I don't believe it !. > >I was paying a flying visit to relativity and certainly did not think [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman I think there is some part of their brain missing,maybe if you hook their ears up to a high voltage source it might wake that side up but they seem happy enough to dream on. If it helps,the great astronomer Huygens shows how clocks are kept in sync with the daily cycle at 24 hours/360 degrees - 'To reduce Watches to the right measure of dayes, or to know how much they goe too fast or too slow in 24. hours.' http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html When Copernicus discovered that the orbital motion of the Earth accounted for the observed behavior of the other planets ,it left axial rotation to explain the daily cycle of day and night.They simply transfered the average 24 hour day to axial rotation as a constant hence clocks measure distance at 4 minutes for each degree of geographical seperation. In a way you are right,the great astronomers never attached the 24 hour day to axial rotation directly,they just assumed axial rotation was constant which allowed them to transfer the 'average' 24 hour day to 'constant' axial rotation,it is a biot tricky but once you get it,it is an incredible achievement. These jokers believe that natural noon is 24 hours exactly even though the old astronomers ,such as Huygens knew that it was not - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png I think it is pretty bad that they think the natural noon cycle is 24 hours exactly but that is just me,the whole thing collapses like a pack of cards when you see the mistake they made. aGAIN,GOOD TO SEE YOU BACK. >I think there is some part of their brain missing,maybe if you hook >their ears up to a high voltage source it might wake that side up but >they seem happy enough to dream on. It is sad they prefer SciFi to Science when they are in such fields of work supposedly. >If it helps,the great astronomer Huygens shows how clocks are kept in >sync with the daily cycle at 24 hours/360 degrees - >'To reduce Watches to the right measure of dayes, or to know how much >they goe too fast or too slow in 24. hours.' >http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html >When Copernicus discovered that the orbital motion of the Earth >accounted for the observed behavior of the other planets ,it left >axial rotation to explain the daily cycle of day and night.They simply >transfered the average 24 hour day to axial rotation as a constant >hence clocks measure distance at 4 minutes for each degree of >geographical seperation. >In a way you are right,the great astronomers never attached the 24 >hour day to axial rotation directly,they just assumed axial rotation >was constant which allowed them to transfer the 'average' 24 hour day >to 'constant' axial rotation,it is a biot tricky but once you get >it,it is an incredible achievement. >These jokers believe that natural noon is 24 hours exactly even though >the old astronomers ,such as Huygens knew that it was not - >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png >I think it is pretty bad that they think the natural noon cycle is 24 >hours exactly but that is just me,the whole thing collapses like a >pack of cards when you see the mistake they made. That is usally what happens when you build upon a pile of bullshit. >aGAIN,GOOD TO SEE YOU BACK. I am glad to be back, thanks :) It is also still sad that they don't get that just because the tick count is the same, it does not mean the timing rate was. science really needs an absolute timing method so it can advance and blow down the house of cards some physics has built. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman :) On May 28, 1:43 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > So, > It does not physically exist. > It exists only as an anstract of something elses periodic motion. > Just as an inch, or a degree, rely on 'real' other objects to abstract > such data from. Well, that's pretty simple to understand, though. Since it's primarily Philosophers and Scientists are the only people who ever even made such claims as: "Time is Quasi space-ish and can be Quasi-measrured with Quasi- experiments". But people studying history, have never paid much attention at all to either Philiosophers or Scientists musings about clocks, rods, and watches,. People studying evolution have never paid much attention at all to any issues other than: "How many infinite long ramblings about trees can fit in a dinosaur's left paw?" And people studying engineering have never paid much attentinon at all to the subject of mathematicians reflections on the category of reflections. > Who can actually grasp such a simple statement? > Aparently not the Einstein worshippers. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman On May 28, 11:45 am, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote: > On May 28, 1:43 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Time has a speed. >Time has a speed. Well, not really It has a rate of 1 second per second. It does not have a distance traveled and that is what is needed to have a speed. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On May 28, 12:06 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman I say it has speed in another sense: it is instantaneous. >I say it has speed in another sense: it is instantaneous. oh man,... Look up what an abstract is Mitch. If the Nobel smarties read all this stuff you spout, they might re-consider and you probably don't want that. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman Spaceman schrieb: >> I say it has speed in another sense: it is instantaneous. > > oh man,... > Look up what an abstract is Mitch. > If the Nobel smarties read all this stuff you spout, they > might re-consider and you probably don't want that. Hi spaceman I was thinking about that problem of time and found a soloution. It's a bit difficult to explain, but let me try. The main idea is about 'elements' (of spacetime) that have no meaningful dimension and are fourdimensional and complex valued (like spacetime is). All elements interact by complex multiplication. That is scewsymmetric. That means, a change of direction is a change of sign. The elements have distances too. You can do both (elements and interval) model with the same entities: quaternions and multiplicative interaction and interval-like connection. So a quaternion can be both: an event and an interval, it's a question of the point of view. That's because the interval-like relation is a rotation in spacelike direction and a duration in timelike direction. So what is space and what is time is a question of the point of view. That point of view is introduced by the observer, mainly by being somewhere and treating himself as at rest. This very fact generates timelike slices stepping ahead so that the observer can stay at rest. The rest of the axes are spacelike. There you see the rotation in the way that ligth acts: it's pacing away with c. But that c is only a relation between time and space based on the observer by treating himself as at rest. Thomas Heger > Hi spaceman > I was thinking about that problem of time and found a soloution. It's a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > But that c is only a relation between time and space based on the > observer by treating himself as at rest. Hi Thomas, That is a head full of info. :) but I think I grasp some of it and will keep reading it and look up a couple words to understand what you stated more than I do now. I still just have a problem with physics turning clocks into magical 'time' (as in dimension) instruments instead of what they truly are, "just fancy counting instruments". You might like my post on the "The absolute time clock (how to build)" It scares people because it would remove the time dilation and that would be a "relativity sin" to have a clock that works correctly 'all the time' like clocks were invented to do. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On May 28, 12:14 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman I do not believe time is an abstract entity. Mathemetical concepts are. Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 >I do not believe time is an abstract entity. Mathemetical concepts >are. Well, I hate to inform you (actually I never hate informing people of facts) :) Time is a counting system (The most basic mathematics of all) A non variable periodic counting system is what is really wanted for the best timing methods. It goes from 1 to 60 for the seconds. Or you could say 0 to 59 if you want. :) or 1 to whatever number of 'ticks and tocks' vibrations of whatever is doing the periodic motion. and starts over again. etc... It IS a mathematical concept based upon counting periodic motions. and nothing more than that. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > Well, I hate to inform you (actually I never hate informing people of facts) Too bad you have damn few facts at your disposal, and those you do have are invariably categorically wrong. > So, > It does not physically exist. [snip crap] Hey Spaceshit, wanna buy a whole bunch of mint-condition 335 BC coins? <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html> Hafele-Keating Experiment for Spaceshit http://www.yugop.com/ver3/stuff/03/fla.html Clock for Spaceshit <http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf> Clocks for Spaceshit http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504017 Clocks for Spaceshit. http://bkocay.cs.umanitoba.ca/Students/Theory.html The distorted cube http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/ Spaceshit emulator http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html Chew on it http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf If Spaceshit doesn't like oscillators, then radioactive decay ahlf-life. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=spaceshit&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/message.html Does it burn, stooopid Spaceshit, does it burn? 1) Where is the clock in the Mossbauer effect, Spaceshit? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossb.html 2) Complete the following, Spaceshit: ( (the first one is mercy humped) (+1)(+1) = +1 (-1)(+1) = ? (+1)(-1) = ? (-1)(-1) = ? SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 Uncle Al(of irvine) Photons are mother natures time clock They give spacetime. Every space ship going close to 'c' needs a photon clock. Bert > Every space ship going close to 'c' needs a photon clock. > Bert Why? sam A Photon clock takes in motion That's "WHY" Bert > sam A Photon clock takes in motion That's "WHY" Bert A photon clock behaves the same as any other clock measuring time. If you don't understand that, Herb then you have some serious self education ahead of you! Sam Shame on you for not knowing how this photon clock works. It is so simple I would think even your parrot brain would get it Go figure I was wrong Sam has the brain of an ant Bert |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.