Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 26.02.2024 um 21:57 schrieb Piotr Babchenko Bakulev:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master
>>> clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence. But no such
>>> thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local and clocks
>>> depend on the local environment and count something there.
>>
>> actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference in
>> relativity you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny
>> indeed. As for instance
>
> Sure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact.
> But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is
> required for the increase of entropy in the first place.

the Entropy 𝗜𝗦 time. Please stop 𝗻𝗼𝘁 undrestanding tensors. Look at this:

𝗞𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗹𝗶𝗻_𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗢𝗿𝗯𝗮𝗻’𝘀_𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗳𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀
Russia doesn’t threaten non-hostile countries, presidential spokesman
Dmitry Peskov has said
https://r%74.com/russia/593320-orban-ukraine-border-kremlin/

Orban is a bastard traitor, he has signed up Sweden and Finland to the
NATO terrorist gang in exchange of money, and is serving as proxy to send
weapons to Ukraine.

Orban has received a 'Gipsies warning'...straighten up, or your friends
USUK, will show you the virtuous path.

Looks like Orban has fallen on to the wrong side of the fence. Great
shame. Guess the pressure got to him after all. Poor man.

Am 28.02.2024 um 23:22 schrieb Huy Kántor Hegedűs:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Am 26.02.2024 um 21:57 schrieb Piotr Babchenko Bakulev:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master
>>>> clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence. But no such
>>>> thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local and clocks
>>>> depend on the local environment and count something there.
>>>
>>> actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference in
>>> relativity you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny
>>> indeed. As for instance
>>
>> Sure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact.
>> But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is
>> required for the increase of entropy in the first place.
>
> the Entropy 𝗜𝗦 time. Please stop 𝗻𝗼𝘁 undrestanding tensors. Look at this:
No, because both terms are related, but not equal.

Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.

Heat dissipates, hence entropy increases.

But that is not time.

The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which we
assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.

That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and the
second.

Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.

But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
frequency was assumed to be universally constant.

But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether these
frequencies are universally constant or not.

This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:

> The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which we
> assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.

> That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and the
> second.

> Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
> certain atoms.

> But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
> frequency was assumed to be universally constant.

> But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether these
> frequencies are universally constant or not.

> This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
> process, which frequency we like to measure.

This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
debated on these forums: What is a clock?

Several years ago, Franz Heymann made a good start in defining the term.
The following represents my feeble attempt to improve on his definition.
I invite others to make corrections and enhancements to what I have written
here.

A "clock" is an artifact (possibly including natural components) comprising
a component (A) that undergoes cyclical changes of state, and a monitoring
component (B) that indicates each return of the cyclically varying
component to a particular state of its cycle. A "useful clock" will
optionally include a component (C) that scales the output of component (B)
so as to mark off units of time that have greater utility and/or which
will allow the clock output to be compared with that of other clocks.

Component (A) must be self-contained in that its period of repetitive
cycling must not be dependent on the application of external forces or
timing signals. (However, it is not necessary that the clock be self-
contained in its power requirements.)

If one has a large ensemble of "useful clocks" in a common location at
the same gravitational potential and in the same state of motion, the
"good clocks" among the ensemble may be distinguished by how closely
their timing outputs maintain a constant ratio with the timing average
of the ensemble. Successive winnowing of "good clocks" enables the
selection of "better clocks".

A "better clock" in which the period of its repetitive cycling component
is set by a fundamental physical process that may be independently and
locally reproduced by individuals well-versed in the art of clock
manufacture is a "candidate standard clock". "Candidate standard clocks"
are not broadly tunable. Variations in timing from one "candidate
standard clock" to another arise depend on the quality factor (Q factor)
of their repetitive cycling components and the quality of the
instrumentation that monitors their cycles.

Given different classes of "candidate standard clock" distinguished by the
physical processes that they monitor as their central timing components,
one or another class may be designated, for a time, as a "standard clock".

By the above definition,
1) A wall clock plugged into 50 or 60 Hz mains is not a "clock" because it
is dependent on the externally generated mains frequency for its timing.
2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling of the
pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
3) Stonehenge is not a "clock". However, the Stonehenge-Earth-Sun system
comprises not just a "clock", but a "useful clock" that had utility in
timing religious ceremonies and crop plantings.
4) Hourglasses and water clocks are not "clocks".
5) A clock based on a quartz crystal, although potentially highly stable,
cannot be a "candidate standard clock" because the frequency of
crystal oscillation is not set by a fundamental physical process, but
rather depends on details of how the crystal is cut.
6) Although a clock based on, say, the period of a millisecond pulsar may
be an "extremely good clock", it cannot be a "candidate standard clock"
because its central timing component cannot be locally reproduced by
individuals in different areas of the universe. Individuals in different
states of motion and in differing gravitational potentials will observe
that the pulsar period, although highly stable, will not correlate
exactly with times they they measure on "local standard clocks".
Furthermore, the phase of the received signal depends on one's location
with respect to the distant timing component, which varies with the
Earth's rotation, its orbit around the Sun, the Sun's travel through
the galaxy, etc.

Suggestions for improving on my attempt at defining different types of
clock are welcome!

On 02/28/2024 09:51 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 28.02.2024 um 23:22 schrieb Huy Kántor Hegedűs:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Am 26.02.2024 um 21:57 schrieb Piotr Babchenko Bakulev:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master
>>>>> clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence. But no such
>>>>> thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local and clocks
>>>>> depend on the local environment and count something there.
>>>>
>>>> actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference in
>>>> relativity you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny
>>>> indeed. As for instance
>>>
>>> Sure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact.
>>> But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is
>>> required for the increase of entropy in the first place.
>>
>> the Entropy 𝗜𝗦 time. Please stop 𝗻𝗼𝘁 undrestanding tensors. Look
>> at this:
> No, because both terms are related, but not equal.
>
> Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
>
> Heat dissipates, hence entropy increases.
>
> But that is not time.
>
> The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which we
> assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
>
> That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and the
> second.
>
> Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
> certain atoms.
>
> But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
> frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
>
> But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether these
> frequencies are universally constant or not.
>
> This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
> process, which frequency we like to measure.
>
>
> TH
>
>
>

Thermodynamics has two laws.

One's about the increase of a cubic centimeter of water, one degree.

The others about the cessation of kinetic energy, zero degrees.

So, in the middle, heat, quantified, calories, has why
there are two kinds of calories, one about the additive increment,
the other about the multiplicative annihilator.

That they result pointing to Kelvins on the same scale,
vis-a-vis "the triple point of water, its boiling and freezing",
and with regards to "the motion of heat", in the conductive and
then convective and states of matter and such, gets into that
thermodynamics has dynamics.

Otherwise you can just call it the "thermostatics".

So, Clausius, after Hooke's law, for "entropy",
then on into Kelvin, because "yes everything is
kind of kinetic", has for that "entropy" has two
definitions or a lesser-known secondary definition,
"entropy" : "1, tendency to empty", "2, opposite 1,
propensity to full", or 1:Aristotle's and 2:Leibniz'.

Then, figuring you've studied Fourier, and heat,
then these days it's good to know that "heat bubbles"
are a things, the "magmas" about the "algebras",
in the derivations, quite formally mathematically,
with regards to the "flow" and "flux" of these things,
that while of course "statistical mechanics after the
second law of thermodynamics calling that entropy",
is the great result for the principle of least action,
in statics, what fall, that there are other laws of
large numbers, and any matter of laws of large numbers,
results information, information, information, ....

I discuss such things in my podcasts in
for example "Moment and Motion" and in
"Descriptive Differential Dynamics",
reading a derivation of Fourier's heat equation,
from a book of Gonzalez-Velasco.

On 2/29/2024 11:22 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/28/2024 09:51 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 28.02.2024 um 23:22 schrieb Huy Kántor Hegedűs:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 26.02.2024 um 21:57 schrieb Piotr Babchenko Bakulev:
>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master
>>>>>> clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence. But no such
>>>>>> thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local and clocks
>>>>>> depend on the local environment and count something there.
>>>>>
>>>>> actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference in
>>>>> relativity you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny
>>>>> indeed. As for instance
>>>>
>>>> Sure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact.
>>>> But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is
>>>> required for the increase of entropy in the first place.
>>>
>>> the Entropy 𝗜𝗦 time. Please stop 𝗻𝗼𝘁 undrestanding tensors. Look
>>> at this:
>> No, because both terms are related, but not equal.
>>
>> Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
>>
>> Heat dissipates, hence entropy increases.
>>
>> But that is not time.
>>
>> The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which we
>> assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
>>
>> That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and the
>> second.
>>
>> Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
>> certain atoms.
>>
>> But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
>> frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
>>
>> But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether these
>> frequencies are universally constant or not.
>>
>> This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
>> process, which frequency we like to measure.
>>
>>
>> TH
>>
>>
>>
>
> Thermodynamics has two laws.
>
> One's about the increase of a cubic centimeter of water, one degree.
>
> The others about the cessation of kinetic energy, zero degrees.
>
> So, in the middle, heat, quantified, calories, has why
> there are two kinds of calories, one about the additive increment,
> the other about the multiplicative annihilator.
>
> That they result pointing to Kelvins on the same scale,
> vis-a-vis "the triple point of water, its boiling and freezing",
> and with regards to "the motion of heat", in the conductive and
> then convective and states of matter and such, gets into that
> thermodynamics has dynamics.
>
> Otherwise you can just call it the "thermostatics".
>
> So, Clausius, after Hooke's law, for "entropy",
> then on into Kelvin, because "yes everything is
> kind of kinetic", has for that "entropy" has two
> definitions or a lesser-known secondary definition,
> "entropy" : "1, tendency to empty", "2, opposite 1,
> propensity to full", or 1:Aristotle's and 2:Leibniz'.
>
>
> Then, figuring you've studied Fourier, and heat,
> then these days it's good to know that "heat bubbles"
> are a things, the "magmas" about the "algebras",
> in the derivations, quite formally mathematically,
> with regards to the "flow" and "flux" of these things,
> that while of course "statistical mechanics after the
> second law of thermodynamics calling that entropy",
> is the great result for the principle of least action,
> in statics, what fall, that there are other laws of
> large numbers, and any matter of laws of large numbers,
> results information, information, information, ....
>
>
>
> I discuss such things in my podcasts in
> for example "Moment and Motion" and in
> "Descriptive Differential Dynamics",
> reading a derivation of Fourier's heat equation,
> from a book of Gonzalez-Velasco.
>
>

Fuck off.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

Thomas Heger wrote:

>>>> actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference in
>>>> relativity you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny
>>>> indeed. As for instance
>>> Sure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact.
>>> But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is
>>> required for the increase of entropy in the first place.
>>
>> the Entropy 𝗜𝗦 time. Please stop 𝗻𝗼𝘁 undrestanding tensors. Look at
>> this:
>
> No, because both terms are related, but not equal.
> Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
> Heat dissipates, hence entropy increases. But that is not time.

use your brain. Then you should be able to sense "time" without Entropy
involved. You can't. It always involves a "clock" which is Entropy enough,
comparing it with a place where Entropy 𝗶𝘀_𝗴𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗼𝗻. In short, it looks like
𝗮_𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿_𝘄𝗮𝗿 is about to start in fucking europe. If you live in Glucksburg,
leave.

𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆_𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲_𝗮𝗶𝗺_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲
Regime Change Karen has said the quiet part out loud, complaining that
Putin’s Russia is “not the Russia we wanted”
https://r%74.com/news/593261-nuland-nukes-west-ukraine-putin/

Scott Ritter to the polaker_𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 misnamed Netaniahu:
"𝗮𝘀_𝗯𝗮𝗱_𝗮𝘀_𝘄𝗲_𝗮𝗿𝗲,_𝘄𝗲_𝗱𝗼𝗻'𝘁_𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗼𝘂𝗿_𝗼𝘄𝗻_𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲,_𝘆𝗼𝘂_𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗳_𝗮_𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗵!"

𝗦𝗰𝗼𝘁𝘁_𝗥𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿ï_𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀_𝗠𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 (page 28:20)
https://b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/video/mzhmKBVGBpRW

𝗪𝗵𝘆_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗮𝗹𝗹_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗰_𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀_𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿_𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗮𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲_𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲_𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻_𝘆𝗼𝘂_𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄_𝘆𝗼𝘂_𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄
https://b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/video/ZEge33Izi84k

Den 29.02.2024 17:54, skrev ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
>
>> That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
>> the second.
>
>> Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
>> certain atoms.
>
>> But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
>> frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
>
>> But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
>> these frequencies are universally constant or not.
>
>> This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
>> process, which frequency we like to measure.
>
> This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
> debated on these forums: What is a clock?
>
> Several years ago, Franz Heymann made a good start in defining the term.
> The following represents my feeble attempt to improve on his definition.
> I invite others to make corrections and enhancements to what I have written
> here.
>
> A "clock" is an artifact (possibly including natural components) comprising
> a component (A) that undergoes cyclical changes of state, and a monitoring
> component (B) that indicates each return of the cyclically varying
> component to a particular state of its cycle. A "useful clock" will
> optionally include a component (C) that scales the output of component (B)
> so as to mark off units of time that have greater utility and/or which
> will allow the clock output to be compared with that of other clocks.
>
> Component (A) must be self-contained in that its period of repetitive
> cycling must not be dependent on the application of external forces or
> timing signals. (However, it is not necessary that the clock be self-
> contained in its power requirements.)
>
> If one has a large ensemble of "useful clocks" in a common location at
> the same gravitational potential and in the same state of motion, the
> "good clocks" among the ensemble may be distinguished by how closely
> their timing outputs maintain a constant ratio with the timing average
> of the ensemble. Successive winnowing of "good clocks" enables the
> selection of "better clocks".
>
> A "better clock" in which the period of its repetitive cycling component
> is set by a fundamental physical process that may be independently and
> locally reproduced by individuals well-versed in the art of clock
> manufacture is a "candidate standard clock". "Candidate standard clocks"
> are not broadly tunable. Variations in timing from one "candidate
> standard clock" to another arise depend on the quality factor (Q factor)
> of their repetitive cycling components and the quality of the
> instrumentation that monitors their cycles.
>
> Given different classes of "candidate standard clock" distinguished by the
> physical processes that they monitor as their central timing components,
> one or another class may be designated, for a time, as a "standard clock".
>
> By the above definition,
> 1) A wall clock plugged into 50 or 60 Hz mains is not a "clock" because it
> is dependent on the externally generated mains frequency for its timing.

> 2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling of the
> pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.

So Newton had no clock! :-)

The Royal Observatory at Greenwich had pendulum clocks as
standard clocks at least until 1939.
From 1853 electrical sensors detected the motion of the pendulum
and sent the signal via wire to repeaters in the observatory
and via telegraph to other cities (later to BBC).

Stationary pendulum clocks can be very precise clocks because
gravitation is an environmental parameter that is pretty constant.
Temperature changes can be compensated for.
No other mechanical clock can compete with it.

But of course it is can't be used if not stationary.

Pendulum clocks are "clocks" according to your definition above,
even if we today would prefer other types of clocks for most applications.

> 3) Stonehenge is not a "clock". However, the Stonehenge-Earth-Sun system
> comprises not just a "clock", but a "useful clock" that had utility in
> timing religious ceremonies and crop plantings.
> 4) Hourglasses and water clocks are not "clocks".
> 5) A clock based on a quartz crystal, although potentially highly stable,
> cannot be a "candidate standard clock" because the frequency of
> crystal oscillation is not set by a fundamental physical process, but
> rather depends on details of how the crystal is cut.
> 6) Although a clock based on, say, the period of a millisecond pulsar may
> be an "extremely good clock", it cannot be a "candidate standard clock"
> because its central timing component cannot be locally reproduced by
> individuals in different areas of the universe. Individuals in different
> states of motion and in differing gravitational potentials will observe
> that the pulsar period, although highly stable, will not correlate
> exactly with times they they measure on "local standard clocks".
> Furthermore, the phase of the received signal depends on one's location
> with respect to the distant timing component, which varies with the
> Earth's rotation, its orbit around the Sun, the Sun's travel through
> the galaxy, etc.
> Suggestions for improving on my attempt at defining different types of
> clock are welcome!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On 2/29/2024 2:39 PM, Vinson Makricosta Stamatelos wrote:
> Scott Ritter to the polaker_𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 misnamed Netaniahu:
> "𝗮𝘀_𝗯𝗮𝗱_𝗮𝘀_𝘄𝗲_𝗮𝗿𝗲,_𝘄𝗲_𝗱𝗼𝗻'𝘁_𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗼𝘂𝗿_𝗼𝘄𝗻_𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲,_𝘆𝗼𝘂_𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗳_𝗮_𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗵!"

Tell your "Scott" Americans killed one million Americans by bioweapon
from 2020 to 2023.

And then fuck yourself Hanson. Go to Hell with your posts.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 02/29/2024 01:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 29.02.2024 17:54, skrev ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
>>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
>>
>>> That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
>>> the second.
>>
>>> Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
>>> certain atoms.
>>
>>> But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the
>>> underlying frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
>>
>>> But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
>>> these frequencies are universally constant or not.
>>
>>> This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
>>> process, which frequency we like to measure.
>>
>> This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
>> debated on these forums: What is a clock?
>>
>> Several years ago, Franz Heymann made a good start in defining the
>> term. The following represents my feeble attempt to improve on his
>> definition. I invite others to make corrections and enhancements to
>> what I have written
>> here.
>>
>> A "clock" is an artifact (possibly including natural components)
>> comprising
>> a component (A) that undergoes cyclical changes of state, and a
>> monitoring
>> component (B) that indicates each return of the cyclically varying
>> component to a particular state of its cycle. A "useful clock" will
>> optionally include a component (C) that scales the output of component
>> (B)
>> so as to mark off units of time that have greater utility and/or which
>> will allow the clock output to be compared with that of other clocks.
>>
>> Component (A) must be self-contained in that its period of repetitive
>> cycling must not be dependent on the application of external forces or
>> timing signals. (However, it is not necessary that the clock be self-
>> contained in its power requirements.)
>>
>> If one has a large ensemble of "useful clocks" in a common location at
>> the same gravitational potential and in the same state of motion, the
>> "good clocks" among the ensemble may be distinguished by how closely
>> their timing outputs maintain a constant ratio with the timing average
>> of the ensemble. Successive winnowing of "good clocks" enables the
>> selection of "better clocks".
>>
>> A "better clock" in which the period of its repetitive cycling component
>> is set by a fundamental physical process that may be independently and
>> locally reproduced by individuals well-versed in the art of clock
>> manufacture is a "candidate standard clock". "Candidate standard clocks"
>> are not broadly tunable. Variations in timing from one "candidate
>> standard clock" to another arise depend on the quality factor (Q factor)
>> of their repetitive cycling components and the quality of the
>> instrumentation that monitors their cycles.
>>
>> Given different classes of "candidate standard clock" distinguished by
>> the
>> physical processes that they monitor as their central timing components,
>> one or another class may be designated, for a time, as a "standard
>> clock".
>>
>> By the above definition,
>> 1) A wall clock plugged into 50 or 60 Hz mains is not a "clock"
>> because it
>> is dependent on the externally generated mains frequency for its timing.
>
>> 2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling
>> of the
>> pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
>
> So Newton had no clock! :-)
>
> The Royal Observatory at Greenwich had pendulum clocks as
> standard clocks at least until 1939.
> From 1853 electrical sensors detected the motion of the pendulum
> and sent the signal via wire to repeaters in the observatory
> and via telegraph to other cities (later to BBC).
>
> Stationary pendulum clocks can be very precise clocks because
> gravitation is an environmental parameter that is pretty constant.
> Temperature changes can be compensated for.
> No other mechanical clock can compete with it.
>
> But of course it is can't be used if not stationary.
>
> Pendulum clocks are "clocks" according to your definition above,
> even if we today would prefer other types of clocks for most applications.
>
>
>> 3) Stonehenge is not a "clock". However, the Stonehenge-Earth-Sun system
>> comprises not just a "clock", but a "useful clock" that had utility in
>> timing religious ceremonies and crop plantings.
>> 4) Hourglasses and water clocks are not "clocks".
>> 5) A clock based on a quartz crystal, although potentially highly stable,
>> cannot be a "candidate standard clock" because the frequency of
>> crystal oscillation is not set by a fundamental physical process, but
>> rather depends on details of how the crystal is cut.
>> 6) Although a clock based on, say, the period of a millisecond pulsar may
>> be an "extremely good clock", it cannot be a "candidate standard clock"
>> because its central timing component cannot be locally reproduced by
>> individuals in different areas of the universe. Individuals in different
>> states of motion and in differing gravitational potentials will observe
>> that the pulsar period, although highly stable, will not correlate
>> exactly with times they they measure on "local standard clocks".
>> Furthermore, the phase of the received signal depends on one's location
>> with respect to the distant timing component, which varies with the
>> Earth's rotation, its orbit around the Sun, the Sun's travel through
>> the galaxy, etc.
>> Suggestions for improving on my attempt at defining different types of
>> clock are welcome!
>

Thanks that's interesting.

At really very tiny small scales, it seems like that according
to the metric and according to the gauge that the quantities
of mass and length become indeterminate, conflated, gometrically
mutated, combined in the definition of the metric, then back
out again as that's the static in that regime, but effective
about dynamics in that regime, and about how to explain both
the effects of quantization, and, space-time contraction.

Now you might say "what? what the? what the huh?" and I'd agree,
indeed, how-the-what, yet, it sort of means _exactly_ that, ....

Then for something like a gravitational singularity it's
like, "the cube wall", about the horizon and utterly
different coordinates inside-outside, vis-a-vis the
usual gravity well and inverse-square, and how these
days it looks like MOND is a very good fit for the
Newtonian side of things, about Newtonian gravity
and Einsteinian and Relativistic dynamics, space-contraction.
I.e., Einstein's bridge results and about the central
symmetries, is where needs be this sort super-classical
complement in the usual particle model, being that the
idea overall is some sort unified theory, which for
Einstein is a differential system and what results as
how it's a gauge theory. Today as recently as yesterday,
the consensus was it being a gauge theory.

Then, clocks and clock action, under acceleration, sort
of reflect moving slower back and forth, ... going forward.

Basically looking at usual sorts neutrinos as the backflow,
for usual theories of the virtual particles and supersymmetry,
and then for the photons the photinos, those double, in a sense,
the photons as flux the photinos as flux, then for the various
complementary quantities, of the graviton(s)' gravitinos, with
mostly the atom as the real graviton not the Higgs boson,
and it being particular its own usual virtual partner,
vis-a-vis "the Higgs' jig", as it were, that these
are modern concepts and after NIST CODATA and running constants.

And Einstein could be like, "you know, that's straight down, ...."

W dniu 29.02.2024 o 17:54, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog pisze:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
>
>> That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
>> the second.
>
>> Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
>> certain atoms.
>
>> But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
>> frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
>
>> But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
>> these frequencies are universally constant or not.
>
>> This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
>> process, which frequency we like to measure.
>
> This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
> debated on these forums: What is a clock?

https://www.bing.com/search?q=clock+picture&form=ANNTH1&refig=7f26d3e3f0dd44458d7e38ba627e82c5&pc=U531
These are, poor halfbrain.

W dniu 29.02.2024 o 22:23, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
> Den 29.02.2024 17:54, skrev ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
>>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
>>
>>> That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
>>> the second.
>>
>>> Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
>>> certain atoms.
>>
>>> But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the
>>> underlying frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
>>
>>> But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
>>> these frequencies are universally constant or not.
>>
>>> This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
>>> process, which frequency we like to measure.
>>
>> This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
>> debated on these forums: What is a clock?
>>
>> Several years ago, Franz Heymann made a good start in defining the
>> term. The following represents my feeble attempt to improve on his
>> definition. I invite others to make corrections and enhancements to
>> what I have written
>> here.
>>
>> A "clock" is an artifact (possibly including natural components)
>> comprising
>> a component (A) that undergoes cyclical changes of state, and a
>> monitoring
>> component (B) that indicates each return of the cyclically varying
>> component to a particular state of its cycle. A "useful clock" will
>> optionally include a component (C) that scales the output of component
>> (B)
>> so as to mark off units of time that have greater utility and/or which
>> will allow the clock output to be compared with that of other clocks.
>>
>> Component (A) must be self-contained in that its period of repetitive
>> cycling must not be dependent on the application of external forces or
>> timing signals. (However, it is not necessary that the clock be self-
>> contained in its power requirements.)
>>
>> If one has a large ensemble of "useful clocks" in a common location at
>> the same gravitational potential and in the same state of motion, the
>> "good clocks" among the ensemble may be distinguished by how closely
>> their timing outputs maintain a constant ratio with the timing average
>> of the ensemble. Successive winnowing of "good clocks" enables the
>> selection of "better clocks".
>>
>> A "better clock" in which the period of its repetitive cycling component
>> is set by a fundamental physical process that may be independently and
>> locally reproduced by individuals well-versed in the art of clock
>> manufacture is a "candidate standard clock". "Candidate standard clocks"
>> are not broadly tunable. Variations in timing from one "candidate
>> standard clock" to another arise depend on the quality factor (Q factor)
>> of their repetitive cycling components and the quality of the
>> instrumentation that monitors their cycles.
>>
>> Given different classes of "candidate standard clock" distinguished by
>> the
>> physical processes that they monitor as their central timing components,
>> one or another class may be designated, for a time, as a "standard
>> clock".
>>
>> By the above definition,
>> 1) A wall clock plugged into 50 or 60 Hz mains is not a "clock"
>> because it
>> is dependent on the externally generated mains frequency for its timing.
>
>> 2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling
>> of the
>> pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
>
> So Newton had no clock! :-)

Isn't that the reason of his mistakes?
Well, now we may see whet The Shit's indoctrination
can do to the brain of its victims.

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Den 29.02.2024 17:54, skrev ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
>> Several years ago, Franz Heymann made a good start in defining the term.
>> The following represents my feeble attempt to improve on his definition.
>> I invite others to make corrections and enhancements to what I have written
>> here.
>>
>> A "clock" is an artifact (possibly including natural components) comprising
>> a component (A) that undergoes cyclical changes of state, and a monitoring
>> component (B) that indicates each return of the cyclically varying
>> component to a particular state of its cycle. A "useful clock" will
>> optionally include a component (C) that scales the output of component (B)
>> so as to mark off units of time that have greater utility and/or which
>> will allow the clock output to be compared with that of other clocks.
>>
>> Component (A) must be self-contained in that its period of repetitive
>> cycling must not be dependent on the application of external forces or
>> timing signals. (However, it is not necessary that the clock be self-
>> contained in its power requirements.)
>>
>> If one has a large ensemble of "useful clocks" in a common location at
>> the same gravitational potential and in the same state of motion, the
>> "good clocks" among the ensemble may be distinguished by how closely
>> their timing outputs maintain a constant ratio with the timing average
>> of the ensemble. Successive winnowing of "good clocks" enables the
>> selection of "better clocks".
>>
>> A "better clock" in which the period of its repetitive cycling component
>> is set by a fundamental physical process that may be independently and
>> locally reproduced by individuals well-versed in the art of clock
>> manufacture is a "candidate standard clock". "Candidate standard clocks"
>> are not broadly tunable. Variations in timing from one "candidate
>> standard clock" to another arise depend on the quality factor (Q factor)
>> of their repetitive cycling components and the quality of the
>> instrumentation that monitors their cycles.
>>
>> Given different classes of "candidate standard clock" distinguished by the
>> physical processes that they monitor as their central timing components,
>> one or another class may be designated, for a time, as a "standard clock".
>>
>> By the above definition,
>> 1) A wall clock plugged into 50 or 60 Hz mains is not a "clock" because it
>> is dependent on the externally generated mains frequency for its timing.

>> 2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling of the
>> pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.

> So Newton had no clock! :-)

Not according to this definition of "clock".
A pendulum + Earth system, however, would together constitute
a "clock".

> The Royal Observatory at Greenwich had pendulum clocks as
> standard clocks at least until 1939.
> From 1853 electrical sensors detected the motion of the pendulum
> and sent the signal via wire to repeaters in the observatory
> and via telegraph to other cities (later to BBC).

> Stationary pendulum clocks can be very precise clocks because
> gravitation is an environmental parameter that is pretty constant.
> Temperature changes can be compensated for.
> No other mechanical clock can compete with it.

The pinnacle of pendulum clock design may have been the
Shortt-synchronome clocks, whose stability reached the
fractional second per year level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortt%E2%80%93Synchronome_clock

> But of course it is can't be used if not stationary.

> Pendulum clocks are "clocks" according to your definition above,
> even if we today would prefer other types of clocks for most applications.

As explained above, a combination of pendulum clock + Earth by my
definition would constitute a "clock". :-)

Also, by my definition, no matter how precise a pendulum + Earth
clock may be, it cannot be a "candidate standard clock" because
two clockmakers cannot independently construct clocks that will
beat together at the same frequency, since their frequencies are
not set by a fundamental physical process. The two clocks must be
carefully tuned to match each other.

In my proposed classification scheme, no "candidate standard
clocks" existed until the first ammonia maser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser#History

>> 3) Stonehenge is not a "clock". However, the Stonehenge-Earth-Sun system
>> comprises not just a "clock", but a "useful clock" that had utility in
>> timing religious ceremonies and crop plantings.
>> 4) Hourglasses and water clocks are not "clocks".
>> 5) A clock based on a quartz crystal, although potentially highly stable,
>> cannot be a "candidate standard clock" because the frequency of
>> crystal oscillation is not set by a fundamental physical process, but
>> rather depends on details of how the crystal is cut.
>> 6) Although a clock based on, say, the period of a millisecond pulsar may
>> be an "extremely good clock", it cannot be a "candidate standard clock"
>> because its central timing component cannot be locally reproduced by
>> individuals in different areas of the universe. Individuals in different
>> states of motion and in differing gravitational potentials will observe
>> that the pulsar period, although highly stable, will not correlate
>> exactly with times they they measure on "local standard clocks".
>> Furthermore, the phase of the received signal depends on one's location
>> with respect to the distant timing component, which varies with the
>> Earth's rotation, its orbit around the Sun, the Sun's travel through
>> the galaxy, etc.
>> Suggestions for improving on my attempt at defining different types of
>> clock are welcome!

On 2/29/2024 11:54 AM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

> 2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling of the
> pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.

To be fair, pendulum clocks (and water clocks and hourglasses) which
depend on the force of gravity really need to include the mass of the
earth as "part" of the clock, as the gravitational force is necessary
for the operation of the clock. At first this definition massively fails
the transportability requirement but actually less so since transporting
the clock between two regions of constant gravity works.

A pendulum clock could work with another force, such as a spring or
metal plate below it with an electrical charge and the pendulum with the
opposite charge. This would require adjustment for the varying distance
between the pendulum and the plate/varying spring force but it could be
compensated for (shape the metal plate so it's not a flat plane)

Den 01.03.2024 18:04, skrev ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> Den 29.02.2024 17:54, skrev ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
>>> Several years ago, Franz Heymann made a good start in defining the
>>> term. The following represents my feeble attempt to improve on his
>>> definition. I invite others to make corrections and enhancements to
>>> what I have written
>>> here.
>>>
>>> A "clock" is an artifact (possibly including natural components)
>>> comprising
>>> a component (A) that undergoes cyclical changes of state, and a
>>> monitoring
>>> component (B) that indicates each return of the cyclically varying
>>> component to a particular state of its cycle. A "useful clock" will
>>> optionally include a component (C) that scales the output of
>>> component (B)
>>> so as to mark off units of time that have greater utility and/or which
>>> will allow the clock output to be compared with that of other clocks.
>>>
>>> Component (A) must be self-contained in that its period of repetitive
>>> cycling must not be dependent on the application of external forces or
>>> timing signals. (However, it is not necessary that the clock be self-
>>> contained in its power requirements.)
>>>
>>> If one has a large ensemble of "useful clocks" in a common location at
>>> the same gravitational potential and in the same state of motion, the
>>> "good clocks" among the ensemble may be distinguished by how closely
>>> their timing outputs maintain a constant ratio with the timing average
>>> of the ensemble. Successive winnowing of "good clocks" enables the
>>> selection of "better clocks".
>>>
>>> A "better clock" in which the period of its repetitive cycling component
>>> is set by a fundamental physical process that may be independently and
>>> locally reproduced by individuals well-versed in the art of clock
>>> manufacture is a "candidate standard clock". "Candidate standard clocks"
>>> are not broadly tunable. Variations in timing from one "candidate
>>> standard clock" to another arise depend on the quality factor (Q factor)
>>> of their repetitive cycling components and the quality of the
>>> instrumentation that monitors their cycles.
>>>
>>> Given different classes of "candidate standard clock" distinguished
>>> by the
>>> physical processes that they monitor as their central timing components,
>>> one or another class may be designated, for a time, as a "standard
>>> clock".
>>>
>>> By the above definition,
>>> 1) A wall clock plugged into 50 or 60 Hz mains is not a "clock"
>>> because it
>>> is dependent on the externally generated mains frequency for its timing.

>>> 2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling
>>> of the
>>> pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
>
>> So Newton had no clock! :-)
>
> Not according to this definition of "clock".
> A pendulum + Earth system, however, would together constitute
> a "clock".

So a stationary pendulum clock on Earth is "a clock".

>
>> The Royal Observatory at Greenwich had pendulum clocks as
>> standard clocks at least until 1939.
>>  From 1853 electrical sensors detected the motion of the pendulum
>> and sent the signal via wire to repeaters in the observatory
>> and via telegraph to other cities (later to BBC).
>
>> Stationary pendulum clocks can be very precise clocks because
>> gravitation is an environmental parameter that is pretty constant.
>> Temperature changes can be compensated for.
>> No other mechanical clock can compete with it.
>
> The pinnacle of pendulum clock design may have been the
> Shortt-synchronome clocks, whose stability reached the
> fractional second per year level.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortt%E2%80%93Synchronome_clock
>
>> But of course it is can't be used if not stationary.
>
>> Pendulum clocks are "clocks" according to your definition above,
>> even if we today would prefer other types of clocks for most
>> applications.
>
> As explained above, a combination of pendulum clock + Earth by my
> definition would constitute a "clock". :-)
>
> Also, by my definition, no matter how precise a pendulum + Earth
> clock may be, it cannot be a "candidate standard clock" because
> two clockmakers cannot independently construct clocks that will
> beat together at the same frequency, since their frequencies are
> not set by a fundamental physical process. The two clocks must be
> carefully tuned to match each other.
> In my proposed classification scheme, no "candidate standard
> clocks" existed until the first ammonia maser.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser#History

Yes,I agree to the above, a pendulum clock cannot be a
"candidate standard clock" today, only atomic clocks can
be that, because the definition of the time unit is based
on a natural atomic constant.

You wrote categorically: 'A pendulum clock is not a "clock"'.

But the pendulum clock at Greenwich was the "standard clock"
of the world from 1675 to 1939.
At that time the definition of the time units were based on
a mean solar day, and the standard clock could only be calibrated
at an observatory, where they every night measured the time of
the meridian passing of a lot of stars.

My only point was that a pendulum clock is still a "clock".

We do not really disagree, do we?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

W dniu 01.03.2024 o 20:24, Volney pisze:
> On 2/29/2024 11:54 AM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>
>> 2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling
>> of the
>> pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
>
> To be fair, pendulum clocks (and water clocks and hourglasses) which
> depend on the force of gravity really need to include the mass of the
> earth as "part" of the clock, as the gravitational force is necessary
> for the operation of the clock.

Is also the sea a part of a boat, stupid Mike?

W dniu 01.03.2024 o 20:47, Paul B. Andersen pisze:

>
> Yes,I agree to the above, a pendulum clock cannot be a
> "candidate standard clock" today, only atomic clocks can
> be that, because the definition of the time unit is based
> on a natural atomic constant.

Unfortunately, as anyone can check in GPS,
your wannabe definition is pretty useless
when it come to serious measurements; no
surprise, of course, common sense was warning
your bunch of idiots.

Volney wrote:

> On 2/29/2024 11:54 AM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>
>> 2) A pendulum clock is not a "clock", because the repetitive cycling of
>> the pendulum is dependent on the local force of gravity.
>
> To be fair, pendulum clocks (and water clocks and hourglasses) which
> depend on the force of gravity really need to include the mass of the
> earth as "part" of the clock, as the gravitational force is necessary
> for the operation of the clock. At first this definition massively fails
> the transportability requirement but actually less so since transporting
> the clock between two regions of constant gravity works.

this is double negation, since the "gravity" already includes earth. But
you are right, corresponding to my
"𝗢𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹", where as such, both the
amplitude probability distribution of the earth 𝗔𝗡𝗗 the pendulum are
involved. A good point indeed, which constitutes
"o𝗻𝗲_𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗘𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗶𝘀_𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴".

https://r%74.com/news/

𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗱_𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻_𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸_𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰_–_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮
Berlin launched a counterintelligence probe into how the conversation
between senior Luftwaffe officers got out

𝗘𝗨_𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿_𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀_𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗳𝗿𝗼𝘇𝗲𝗻_𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱
Brussels unblocked €2 billion after Budapest approved Sweden’s NATO
membership

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀_𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼_𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗱_𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻_𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸
The Defense Ministry fears that Russia may have spied on Luftwaffe
generals

𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮_𝗵𝗮𝘀_𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱’𝘀_‘𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁_𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗲’_𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿_𝗮𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗹_–_𝗨𝗦_𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹
Washington desperately needs to modernize its own nuclear forces, the
head of the US Strategic Command has said

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗳_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀_𝗼𝗻_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮:_𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗵𝗮𝘀_𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗱_𝘀𝗼_𝗳𝗮𝗿_𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗔𝗣
Luftwaffe generals have allegedly talked about secretly helping
Ukraine bomb the Crimean Bridge

𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁_𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗼𝗳_𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗻_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻_𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲_𝗘𝘅𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲
The text in Russian has been published by RT editor-in-chief Margarita
Simonyan, hours after she reported receiving the recording

𝗠𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗻_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝘀𝘄𝗶𝗺_𝗶𝗻_𝗦𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗲
Paris will use the river for the opening ceremony of the 2024
Olympics, and as a site for swimming competitions

𝗨𝗦_𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁_𝘁𝗼_𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗶𝗻_𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_–_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮’𝘀_𝘁𝗼𝗽_𝗯𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘀
Washington uses hyped-up foreign threats as a pretext for military
expansion, Beijing’s defense spokesman has said

𝗣𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗼𝗻_𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗻𝘀_𝗼𝗳_𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮-𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝗵
The US defense secretary calls for additional funding for Kiev’s war
effort before it’s too late

100+_𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱_𝗮𝘀_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹𝗶_𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗽𝘀_𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻_𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲_𝗼𝗻_𝗵𝘂𝗻𝗴𝗿𝘆_𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗚𝗮𝘇𝗮_–_𝗛𝗮𝗺𝗮𝘀_(𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗢)
An IDF source claimed soldiers “felt threatened” and blamed any
casualties on the Palestinians

𝗠𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗻_𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝗯𝘆_𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝘀_𝗼𝗻_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗽𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲
The French president brushed off criticism from fellow NATO members,
insisting his words were “thought-through and measured”

𝗨𝗦-𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆_𝗮𝘀𝗸𝘀_𝗨𝗡_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽_𝘁𝗼_𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱_𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻
Cuba has asked the World Food Programme for donations of powdered milk

𝗨𝗞_‘𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆_𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲𝗱’_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁_–_𝗞𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗹𝗶𝗻
Dmitry Peskov has responded to British media revelations

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲_𝘁𝗼_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆_–_𝗻𝗲𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿
Kiev is within its rights to use Finnish-supplied weaponry as it sees
fit, Helsinki has said

𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸𝘀_𝗼𝗻_𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲_–_𝗪𝗮𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘄
Kiev has denied the claim, saying no negotiations about temporarily
closing the border were taking place

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗹𝘀_𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘀𝘂𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗼𝗳_𝗝𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗚𝗮𝘇𝗮_𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗢𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻
By locking away one journalist and abetting the misery of an entire
people, the West combines oppressive structure with disregard for law

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗵𝗮𝘀_𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮-𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁_𝘀𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼_–_𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗱
The media outlet claims to have obtained a new risk analysis devised
for MPs

𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝘇_𝘀𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗱_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗨𝗞_𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗽_𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲
The chancellor said giving Kiev long-range missiles would require
assistance from German troops, citing London’s example

𝗣𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗼𝗻_𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗶𝘁𝘀_𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁_$4_𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_–_𝗖𝗡𝗡
A new $60 billion aid package for Kiev faces gridlock in Congress amid
Republican opposition

𝗧ü𝗿𝗸𝗶𝘆𝗲_𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗵𝗼𝘀𝘁_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮-𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸𝘀
Ankara has repeatedly sought to act as mediator since Kiev derailed
the last round of negotiations less than a month into the conflict

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> My only point was that a pendulum clock is still a "clock".

> We do not really disagree, do we?

No, of course not. Merely proposing a revised classification
scheme for various entities called "clock" does not in any
way alter the underlying physics. A revised classification
scheme may, on the other hand, suggest useful alternative
ways of thinking about these entities. :-)

Paul B. Andersen wrote: > ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
>> Not according to this definition of "clock".
>> A pendulum + Earth system, however, would together constitute a
>> "clock".
>
> So a stationary pendulum clock on Earth is "a clock".

yes, definitely I can see your point. Now, prepare your ass for Siberia,
yet clearly another state_terrorism.

𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗱_𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻_𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰_–_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮
Berlin has reportedly launched a counterintelligence probe into how the
conversation between senior Luftwaffe officers got out
https://r%74.com/news/593571-leaked-german-recording-authentic/

In this game of chess,the west has already lost it's queen,and is busily
rearranging it's other pieces,knowing that total collapse is only two
moves away...Check Mate fools !!

W dniu 02.03.2024 o 07:59, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog pisze:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> My only point was that a pendulum clock is still a "clock".
>
>> We do not really disagree, do we?
>
> No, of course not. Merely proposing a revised classification
> scheme for various entities called "clock" does not in any way alter the
> underlying physics.

Like in Orwell, distorting the meaning
of commonly used words in your absurd
newspeak is a part of your absurd
ideology.

Am 29.02.2024 um 17:54 schrieb ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
>
>> That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
>> the second.
>
>> Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
>> certain atoms.
>
>> But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
>> frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
>
>> But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
>> these frequencies are universally constant or not.
>
>> This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
>> process, which frequency we like to measure.
>
> This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
> debated on these forums: What is a clock?

A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).

Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes
and seconds.

But that's not time neither (it's a measure).

So: time and what clocks say are related, but are not equal.

Some mechanism will most likely exist, which pushes time further. But we
know for certain, that this is not done by watches.

....

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 29.02.2024 um 17:54 schrieb ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
>> This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
>> debated on these forums: What is a clock?
>
> A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
> Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes
> and seconds. But that's not time neither (it's a measure).
> So: time and what clocks say are related, but are not equal.
> Some mechanism will most likely exist, which pushes time further. But we
> know for certain, that this is not done by watches.

lol, you guys are completely banana in what clocks are supposed to be. But
good news, finally. Capitalist amrica sucks dicks. Gearmony suck dicks
too. Even more. Russia : "see you in Barlin!!" lol.

𝗩𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮_𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱sky_𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝘀
The US Deputy Secretary of State will leave her role in the coming weeks,
her boss Antony Blinken has announced
https://r%74.com/news/593816-us-deputy-secretary-nuland-quits/

"He also noted that her “leadership on Ukraine” will be the subject of
study “for years to come” by diplomats and students of foreign policy."
Somewhat like lucifer directing U on how to get passage to Heaven.

She is going to try and hide. The worm is turning. Its gunna get hot!

They'll throw Biden under the bus next. Watch.

pass the sick bag. I'D vomit all over that thing! That's how MUCH that
THING disgusts me!

When George Galloway recently referred to "lipstick on a pig" I think he
had Nuland in mind.

Resignation is NOT an option. She must be tried for treason and dealt with
accordingly. Something big is coming would be my read from this news.
Probably US intelligence run biolabs in Ukraine. Or worse she devoting her
time exclusively to the Trump assassination file. Freaks like this don't
just quit for no reason.

The rats leave the sinking ship

She won't leave before she spits more malignant germs; she is full of it.

Strongest signal I've seen that US is about to change policy on Ukraine.

Some 𝗼𝗹𝗱_𝗽𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 should be brought back 𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗼𝗻.

Nuland belongs in prison with Biden, Harris, Blinken, Pelosi, AOC....They
talk about corruption, terrorists, and Russia like we the USA are not the
worst offenders in the known world,

Victoria Nuland was HUMILIATED by Niger Coup Leaders.

Mar 5 · Jack Heart Esoteric Evolution
"So, this hideous Jew, who is a dead ringer for Jabba the Hutt, will just
walk away after murdering 𝘂𝗽𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲? Does America
think this is good enough? Eviscerating her and using her entrails to
strangle her husband Kagan, the king of the Jews wouldn't be good enough.
America must suffer the consequences of "worshiping devils and strangers
in bed" to quote Jim Carroll, a poet that was not a Jewish devil."

To market to market he fired the fat pig, home again home again jiggety
jig. She's joining the circus as the ugliest creature on earth, inside and
out.

Good Victoria Nuland quit or dismissed. One less ignorant evil Cretin in
the ignorant administration.

WHEN THE EVIL ZIONIST SHIP SINKS THE EVIL RATS ESCAPE.

Yeah, she's going to be worse somewhere else!

W dniu 05.03.2024 o 21:26, Thomas Heger pisze:
> Am 29.02.2024 um 17:54 schrieb ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
>>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
>>
>>> That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
>>> the second.
>>
>>> Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
>>> certain atoms.
>>
>>> But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
>>> frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
>>
>>> But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
>>> these frequencies are universally constant or not.
>>
>>> This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
>>> process, which frequency we like to measure.
>>
>> This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
>> debated on these forums: What is a clock?
>
> A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
>
> Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes
> and seconds.
>
> But that's not time neither (it's a measure).

Wrong. Yes, that's - exactly - time. Why not,
doesn't match your mystical delusions? It's not
obligged to.

=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
>
> W dniu 05.03.2024 o 21:26, Thomas Heger pisze:
> > Am 29.02.2024 um 17:54 schrieb ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
> >> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >>> The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
> >>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
> >>
> >>> That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
> >>> the second.
> >>
> >>> Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
> >>> certain atoms.
> >>
> >>> But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
> >>> frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
> >>
> >>> But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
> >>> these frequencies are universally constant or not.
> >>
> >>> This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
> >>> process, which frequency we like to measure.
> >>
> >> This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
> >> debated on these forums: What is a clock?
> >
> > A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
> >
> > Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes
> > and seconds.
> >
> > But that's not time neither (it's a measure).
>
> Wrong. Yes, that's - exactly - time. Why not,
> doesn't match your mystical delusions? It's not
> obligged to.

if one clock is running slow,
and the other clock fast...
which one is the real time?

answer: neither one.

even a sundial does not have the real time...

yous people let clocks
run your life and yous don't even know
that the real time is?

oh, i'm late...i gotta go.

is 't' a number?

numbers don't exist.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
> >
> > W dniu 05.03.2024 o 21:26, Thomas Heger pisze:
> > > Am 29.02.2024 um 17:54 schrieb ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
> > >> Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which
> > >>> we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.
> > >>
> > >>> That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and
> > >>> the second.
> > >>
> > >>> Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
> > >>> certain atoms.
> > >>
> > >>> But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying
> > >>> frequency was assumed to be universally constant.
> > >>
> > >>> But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether
> > >>> these frequencies are universally constant or not.
> > >>
> > >>> This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
> > >>> process, which frequency we like to measure.
> > >>
> > >> This all comes down to the age-old question that has been repeatedly
> > >> debated on these forums: What is a clock?
> > >
> > > A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
> > >
> > > Clocks show a measure, which we humans interpret as date, hours, minutes
> > > and seconds.
> > >
> > > But that's not time neither (it's a measure).
> >
> > Wrong. Yes, that's - exactly - time. Why not,
> > doesn't match your mystical delusions? It's not
> > obligged to.
>
> if one clock is running slow,
> and the other clock fast...
> which one is the real time?
>
> answer: neither one.
>
> even a sundial does not have the real time...
>
> yous people let clocks
> run your life and yous don't even know
> that the real time is?
>
> oh, i'm late...i gotta go.
>
> is 't' a number?
>
> numbers don't exist.
>

i got a good idea..
throw away all
your clocks.

No more time.

if you see the sun
moving around...
that is all
it is doing...moving
around.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.