Once upon the time, a cretin wrote a paper that had an assertion about time
which was bought by generations of followers who worshiped him:

"Time is what my clock shows", wrote the imbecile. And from that, he
developed a fairy tail about time and length, which plagiarized a prior paper
from Lorentz, which dismissed the expression of time as non-linear undesired
result of his pursuit of length contraction due to inertial motion.

But actually, I never read about any scientific attempt to define time, in the
following 100 years. This is because time is an auxiliary variable to describe
motion, and only has any value as a relative interval or duration. Not an
absolute mark with physical meaning.

Do the following experiment:

Sit and do nothing, except the mental effort trying to capture the pass of
time. If possible, do it in a quiet room with nothing moving. You can have
a clock, either analog or digital.

Do the following:

I) Mark a timestamp, and just allow things happens. You can move or
be still.

Do you feel the pass of time? Check the elapsed timestamp. Did it feel
real?
Now try to focus on the pass of time for one hour (set an alarm).
Once the alarm goes off, what did you experienced? Did you feel the pass
of time? Really? By the second or by the minute?

Think about what time was for you in these experiments.

II) Now repeat I) but looking at the clock all the time, sensing (but not counting)
every second as you observe the clock.

Once a time duration of the experiment (as measured by your clock), think
about time and if you felt that it was passing.

Did the pass of time had ANY MEANING to you?

Probably not. Then ask yourself WHAT THE FUCK TIME IS.

For some cretins, time is the fourth dimension of the aberration called
spacetime.

According to these cretins, you HAVE BEEN TRAVELING in the fourth dimension, moving but not moving.

Does it make any sense to you? Of course not.

But more than 50,000 cretins made a living with this shit in the last 100 years.

You don't feel an IMBECILE yet? Well, keep thinking until you really start
to be mad about this shit.

Then, when you're mad enough, you become A NORMAL PERSON.

It is worth the effort to BE AWAKE.

Congratulations.

Time has different slow rates.

Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> Once upon the time, a cretin wrote a paper that had an assertion about time
> which was bought by generations of followers who worshiped him:
>
> "Time is what my clock shows", wrote the imbecile. And from that, he
> developed a fairy tail about time and length, which plagiarized a prior paper
> from Lorentz, which dismissed the expression of time as non-linear undesired
> result of his pursuit of length contraction due to inertial motion.
>
> But actually, I never read about any scientific attempt to define time, in the
> following 100 years. This is because time is an auxiliary variable to describe
> motion, and only has any value as a relative interval or duration. Not an
> absolute mark with physical meaning.
>
> Do the following experiment:
>
> Sit and do nothing, except the mental effort trying to capture the pass of
> time. If possible, do it in a quiet room with nothing moving. You can have
> a clock, either analog or digital.
>
> Do the following:
>
> I) Mark a timestamp, and just allow things happens. You can move or
> be still.
>
> Do you feel the pass of time? Check the elapsed timestamp. Did it feel
> real?
> Now try to focus on the pass of time for one hour (set an alarm).
> Once the alarm goes off, what did you experienced? Did you feel the pass
> of time? Really? By the second or by the minute?
>
> Think about what time was for you in these experiments.
>
> II) Now repeat I) but looking at the clock all the time, sensing (but not counting)
> every second as you observe the clock.
>
> Once a time duration of the experiment (as measured by your clock), think
> about time and if you felt that it was passing.
>
> Did the pass of time had ANY MEANING to you?
>
> Probably not. Then ask yourself WHAT THE FUCK TIME IS.
>
> For some cretins, time is the fourth dimension of the aberration called
> spacetime.
>
> According to these cretins, you HAVE BEEN TRAVELING in the fourth dimension, moving but not moving.
>
> Does it make any sense to you? Of course not.
>
> But more than 50,000 cretins made a living with this shit in the last 100 years.
>
> You don't feel an IMBECILE yet? Well, keep thinking until you really start
> to be mad about this shit.
>
> Then, when you're mad enough, you become A NORMAL PERSON.
>
> It is worth the effort to BE AWAKE.
>
> Congratulations.

Time does not move...so how can it pass?

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

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 2:23:23 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > Once upon the time, a cretin wrote a paper that had an assertion about time
> > which was bought by generations of followers who worshiped him:
> >
> > "Time is what my clock shows", wrote the imbecile. And from that, he
> > developed a fairy tail about time and length, which plagiarized a prior paper
> > from Lorentz, which dismissed the expression of time as non-linear undesired
> > result of his pursuit of length contraction due to inertial motion.
> >
> > But actually, I never read about any scientific attempt to define time, in the
> > following 100 years. This is because time is an auxiliary variable to describe
> > motion, and only has any value as a relative interval or duration. Not an
> > absolute mark with physical meaning.
> >
> > Do the following experiment:
> >
> > Sit and do nothing, except the mental effort trying to capture the pass of
> > time. If possible, do it in a quiet room with nothing moving. You can have
> > a clock, either analog or digital.
> >
> > Do the following:
> >
> > I) Mark a timestamp, and just allow things happens. You can move or
> > be still.
> >
> > Do you feel the pass of time? Check the elapsed timestamp. Did it feel
> > real?
> > Now try to focus on the pass of time for one hour (set an alarm).
> > Once the alarm goes off, what did you experienced? Did you feel the pass
> > of time? Really? By the second or by the minute?
> >
> > Think about what time was for you in these experiments.
> >
> > II) Now repeat I) but looking at the clock all the time, sensing (but not counting)
> > every second as you observe the clock.
> >
> > Once a time duration of the experiment (as measured by your clock), think
> > about time and if you felt that it was passing.
> >
> > Did the pass of time had ANY MEANING to you?
> >
> > Probably not. Then ask yourself WHAT THE FUCK TIME IS.
> >
> > For some cretins, time is the fourth dimension of the aberration called
> > spacetime.
> >
> > According to these cretins, you HAVE BEEN TRAVELING in the fourth dimension, moving but not moving.
> >
> > Does it make any sense to you? Of course not.
> >
> > But more than 50,000 cretins made a living with this shit in the last 100 years.
> >
> > You don't feel an IMBECILE yet? Well, keep thinking until you really start
> > to be mad about this shit.
> >
> > Then, when you're mad enough, you become A NORMAL PERSON.
> >
> > It is worth the effort to BE AWAKE.
> >
> > Congratulations.
> Time does not move...so how can it pass?
>
>
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

You move through time, even when you don't realize it.

And mathematics models this motion, which has been helpful for centuries to develop a technical tool
to get practical results of such models, like letting you know where you are if you have data about original
position, velocity (3D vector) and time duration since start.

You can make a graph with your motion through time flow, which is separated from position (not the spacetime shit).

You realize that time passed because the surrounding environment changed.

It happens even if you remain sat outdoors, because Earth rotates and light and climate changes.

Time is not an illusion. You, and everyone else, have an expiration date, and a beginning.

Every living form perceives the flow of time.

On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 08:41:53 UTC+2, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 2:23:23 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > Once upon the time, a cretin wrote a paper that had an assertion about time
> > > which was bought by generations of followers who worshiped him:
> > >
> > > "Time is what my clock shows", wrote the imbecile. And from that, he
> > > developed a fairy tail about time and length, which plagiarized a prior paper
> > > from Lorentz, which dismissed the expression of time as non-linear undesired
> > > result of his pursuit of length contraction due to inertial motion.
> > >
> > > But actually, I never read about any scientific attempt to define time, in the
> > > following 100 years. This is because time is an auxiliary variable to describe
> > > motion, and only has any value as a relative interval or duration. Not an
> > > absolute mark with physical meaning.
> > >
> > > Do the following experiment:
> > >
> > > Sit and do nothing, except the mental effort trying to capture the pass of
> > > time. If possible, do it in a quiet room with nothing moving. You can have
> > > a clock, either analog or digital.
> > >
> > > Do the following:
> > >
> > > I) Mark a timestamp, and just allow things happens. You can move or
> > > be still.
> > >
> > > Do you feel the pass of time? Check the elapsed timestamp. Did it feel
> > > real?
> > > Now try to focus on the pass of time for one hour (set an alarm).
> > > Once the alarm goes off, what did you experienced? Did you feel the pass
> > > of time? Really? By the second or by the minute?
> > >
> > > Think about what time was for you in these experiments.
> > >
> > > II) Now repeat I) but looking at the clock all the time, sensing (but not counting)
> > > every second as you observe the clock.
> > >
> > > Once a time duration of the experiment (as measured by your clock), think
> > > about time and if you felt that it was passing.
> > >
> > > Did the pass of time had ANY MEANING to you?
> > >
> > > Probably not. Then ask yourself WHAT THE FUCK TIME IS.
> > >
> > > For some cretins, time is the fourth dimension of the aberration called
> > > spacetime.
> > >
> > > According to these cretins, you HAVE BEEN TRAVELING in the fourth dimension, moving but not moving.
> > >
> > > Does it make any sense to you? Of course not.
> > >
> > > But more than 50,000 cretins made a living with this shit in the last 100 years.
> > >
> > > You don't feel an IMBECILE yet? Well, keep thinking until you really start
> > > to be mad about this shit.
> > >
> > > Then, when you're mad enough, you become A NORMAL PERSON.
> > >
> > > It is worth the effort to BE AWAKE.
> > >
> > > Congratulations.
> > Time does not move...so how can it pass?
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
> You move through time, even when you don't realize it.

Time is a coordinate. A virtual abstract. Similiarly to
geographical latitude/longitude - you feel them when/
because you're trained to.

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 11:17:42 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Once upon the time, a cretin wrote a paper that had an assertion about time
> which was bought by generations of followers who worshiped him:
>
> "Time is what my clock shows", wrote the imbecile. And from that, he
> developed a fairy tail about time and length, which plagiarized a prior paper
> from Lorentz, which dismissed the expression of time as non-linear undesired
> result of his pursuit of length contraction due to inertial motion.
>
> But actually, I never read about any scientific attempt to define time, in the
> following 100 years. This is because time is an auxiliary variable to describe
> motion, and only has any value as a relative interval or duration. Not an
> absolute mark with physical meaning.

Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf
Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate.

Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
a stationary point in empty space.

Ed

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:17:42 AM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Once upon the time, a cretin wrote a paper that had an assertion about time...

Things change. We have memories of such change. Memories are also 'change'.
Time may be some measure, some parameter to describe changes or events.
How can we proceed to define a parameter (time?) that would be useful in some respect to describe changes?
Using our feelings? The motion of the stars? Something else?
Should such a definition be a quantitative one or subjective one?

So, how would YOU define 'time'?

Is there anything wrong with the meaning of 'time' as used amongst physicists?
Are they free to use whatever definition they want?
Has their use of their concept (their operational definition of time) help them
to progress, to discover, to engineer?
Would alternate definitions of 'time' be more of use to them and to make them progress faster?

etc...

(note that such questions/topics have been discussed in thoroughly for over 2000 years)

On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 16:39:25 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:17:42 AM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Once upon the time, a cretin wrote a paper that had an assertion about time...
>
>
> Things change. We have memories of such change. Memories are also 'change'.
> Time may be some measure, some parameter to describe changes or events.
> How can we proceed to define a parameter (time?) that would be useful in some respect to describe changes?
> Using our feelings? The motion of the stars? Something else?
> Should such a definition be a quantitative one or subjective one?

Most of the terms we're using remain undefined.
There are good reasons for it; but unfortunately
not comprehendable by such a poor halfbrain

>
> So, how would YOU define 'time'?
>
> Is there anything wrong with the meaning of 'time' as used amongst physicists?

Yes, poor halfbrain.

> Are they free to use whatever definition they want?

No, poor halfbrain.

> Has their use of their concept (their operational definition of time) help them
> to progress, to discover, to engineer?

No, poor halfbrain.

> Would alternate definitions of 'time' be more of use to them and to make them progress faster?

Most of the terms we're using remain undefined.
There are good reasons for it; but unfortunately
not comprehendable by such a poor halfbrain

El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:

> Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf
> Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate.
>
> Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> a stationary point in empty space.
>
> Ed

Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature.
We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads.
In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations.
Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation.
All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc.

My conclusion about this topic is as follows:

1) We, as living species, don't feel or register in any form the pass of time. We just can't, because we don't have
any internal organ or subsystem that is devoted to such a superfluous, metaphysical task.

2) We, as living species, do have subsystems that can sense "time duration" and trigger internal alarms: time to eat, time to sleep,
time to move from one place to another, etc. But, besides such "notifications", we can't feel the flow of time continuously. Only
jumps in time (expiration of time lapses, voluntarily programmed or not).
Hence, for us, time flow is meaningless. We can't feel the pass of seconds, linearly, nor even other superior scale.
We left it for "alarm clocks", either biological or technological.

3) The need to register the flow of time can be divided into spheres of influence of time on events:

- On STEM activities (Science, Technology, Engineering, Manufacturing), it's a need to measure the flow of time in analog terms.
We rely on technology to register such flow, as we can't. Then we use the results, while any task is commanded by devices, not humans.

- On civilian activities (most of what remains), we don't care about the flow of time but about lapses (time duration), and even so
we need of auxiliary systems to notify to us the expiration of the assigned time duration of whatever (or the excess above the
assigned lapse. We also depend on others to react to time-lapse expirations, humans or not. Also, depend on nature events.

- The same apply to military activities.
So, what remains are intellectual activities (like in arts, philosophy, etc.) were time is a matter of discussion: it's metaphysics.

5) The "crime at science" that Einstein perpetuated is the attempt to redefine time as dependent on MOTION, which belongs to
the first class (STEM), but the cretin TRIED to move such concept to other spheres of activities, and a bunch of retarded bought
that shit to be REAL outside of STEM sphere.

That subversive attempt to indoctrinate that "time is not what seems to be", was expanded further by Minkowski's SPACETIME.

Since that crap was brought out of the STEM sphere (and cosmology is OUTSIDE of STEM), the degeneracy of thought expanded
like WILDFIRE in the mind of some fucking LIBERALS, who dared to replace religion with metaphysics. This movement is the heart
of theories about what the Universe is and, even more disgraceful, when the Universe started and how is evolving.

So, being this my final thought about time, it's clear for me that humans don't register the flow of time (if such thing even exist), and
that such need was born due to the need of STEM sphere of activities to control cascades of events (thought as evidence that time
IS NEEDED to model reality).

Humans don't even need TIME. Cascade of events JUST HAPPEN, and we accept this and live in this way all our life. STEM require
that time exist as an analog variable that complement spatial positioning.

Humans only require to be told that different lapses expired (time duration), in order to move on and do other things.

For us, time is not a continuum, and we daily jump from one event to the next. Sometimes, they FEEL longer in time or shorter,
according to our experience of previous chain of events. But TIME, for us, has no meaning if we don't register it with "clocks".

But, some cretins are working on attosecond clocks.

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:39:30 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

> Most of the terms we're using remain undefined.

In physics, 'time' has a clear and precise meaning. Its has
a very specific definition. If you are unaware of this, then search a little on the net.

> not comprehendable by such a poor halfbrain

Namecalling doesn't help the discussion. It just shows your lack of arguments and disrespect.

> > So, how would YOU define 'time'?

No answer?

> > Is there anything wrong with the meaning of 'time' as used amongst physicists?
> Yes, poor halfbrain.

Namecalling doesn't help the discussion. It just shows your lack of arguments and disrespect.

> > Are they free to use whatever definition they want?
> No, poor halfbrain.

Namecalling doesn't help the discussion. It just shows your lack of arguments and disrespect.

> > Has their use of their concept (their operational definition of time) help them
> > to progress, to discover, to engineer?
> No, poor halfbrain.

Namecalling doesn't help the discussion. It just shows your lack of arguments and disrespect.

> Most of the terms we're using remain undefined.

You said that already.

So in your reply, you had no arguments, no support, no respect. Just namecalling.
Good job!

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:14:43 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:

> But, some cretins are working on attosecond clocks.

A farmer may not need such clocks.

But some 'cretins' require sending a lot of info away 'over there', really fast.
Such clocks gives them this edge; its useful for them.
Are you still using a 300 baud modem to watch youtube?

On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 18:14:28 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
>
> > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf
> > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate.
> >
> > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> > a stationary point in empty space.
> >
> > Ed
> Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works

You're too dumb, of course, to even notice that it doesn't
work; and that (together with the rest of your incompetence)
makes your model worthless. But it's true they're what you
think. Your screams of proofs, evidence and so on are nothing
but wishful thinking combined with plain lies.

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 1:33:44 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:14:43 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > But, some cretins are working on attosecond clocks.
> A farmer may not need such clocks.
>
> But some 'cretins' require sending a lot of info away 'over there', really fast.
> Such clocks gives them this edge; its useful for them.
> Are you still using a 300 baud modem to watch youtube?

You are confused.

I'm mocking at femtosecond or attosecond movements in STEM to MEASURE time, not about generating
any process to move information on channels at tera, femto or atto bits/sec.

They are two completely different fields. Right now, technology provides channels running at 400 Terabits/sec, on 4 single FOptics.

Chinese Huawei, Japanese Fujitsu and French Alcatel are leading this segment in submarine FO cables, which run more than
1,000 Km without regenerators. Imagine that.

But, on other institutions that are taking care of time measurement (like BIMP, NIST, etc.), there is a movement of a group of fucking
cretins that INSIST that UTC and TAI has to be kept up to attosecond level of accuracy, FORCING the redefinition of UTC/TAI as
dependent on GRAVITATIONAL FIELD (that is the shitty einstenian theory of GR). These cretins are 5th. columnists of science, working
INSIDE institutions to indoctrinate others about the NEED to observe general relativity everywhere.

Got it?

I can clarify it further, if you need it.

Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> ... nothing but wishful thinking combined with plain lies.

This is an adequate characterization of your published posts'
content here, Wozniak. You forgot libels and insults though.

On 5/27/2022 11:14 AM, Paparios wrote:
> El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
>
>> Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf
>> Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
>> The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate.
>>
>> Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
>> a stationary point in empty space.
>>
>> Ed
>
> Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature.
> We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads.
> In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations.
> Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation.
> All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc.

As I wrote earlier, perhaps humans don't have the capacity to understand
how nature works, only small glimpses of the realities that surround us.

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:57:36 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 1:33:44 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:

> I'm mocking at femtosecond or attosecond movements in STEM to MEASURE time,

They are not doing that to 'measure time'. See below.

> not about generating any process to move information on channels
> at tera, femto or atto bits/sec. They are two completely different fields.

Scientists (and standards bureaus) are advancing femto/atto second devices
so as to make more precise & useful instruments (to probe further our universe, say)
....and to make quicker communications...

> there is a movement of a group of fucking cretins that INSIST that UTC and TAI has to be
> kept up to attosecond level of accuracy, FORCING the redefinition of UTC/TAI as
> dependent on GRAVITATIONAL FIELD

For everyday use, such timing is overkill; farmers don't need it.
But for some people, such accuracies are desired. This won't change
the way the farmer is farming... Thus, such accuracies satisfies 'them' and farmers alike.
Its a win-win situation (in that sense).

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 10:23:23 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > Once upon the time, a cretin wrote a paper that had an assertion about time
> > which was bought by generations of followers who worshiped him:
> >
> > "Time is what my clock shows", wrote the imbecile. And from that, he
> > developed a fairy tail about time and length, which plagiarized a prior paper
> > from Lorentz, which dismissed the expression of time as non-linear undesired
> > result of his pursuit of length contraction due to inertial motion.
> >
> > But actually, I never read about any scientific attempt to define time, in the
> > following 100 years. This is because time is an auxiliary variable to describe
> > motion, and only has any value as a relative interval or duration. Not an
> > absolute mark with physical meaning.
> >
> > Do the following experiment:
> >
> > Sit and do nothing, except the mental effort trying to capture the pass of
> > time. If possible, do it in a quiet room with nothing moving. You can have
> > a clock, either analog or digital.
> >
> > Do the following:
> >
> > I) Mark a timestamp, and just allow things happens. You can move or
> > be still.
> >
> > Do you feel the pass of time? Check the elapsed timestamp. Did it feel
> > real?
> > Now try to focus on the pass of time for one hour (set an alarm).
> > Once the alarm goes off, what did you experienced? Did you feel the pass
> > of time? Really? By the second or by the minute?
> >
> > Think about what time was for you in these experiments.
> >
> > II) Now repeat I) but looking at the clock all the time, sensing (but not counting)
> > every second as you observe the clock.
> >
> > Once a time duration of the experiment (as measured by your clock), think
> > about time and if you felt that it was passing.
> >
> > Did the pass of time had ANY MEANING to you?
> >
> > Probably not. Then ask yourself WHAT THE FUCK TIME IS.
> >
> > For some cretins, time is the fourth dimension of the aberration called
> > spacetime.
> >
> > According to these cretins, you HAVE BEEN TRAVELING in the fourth dimension, moving but not moving.
> >
> > Does it make any sense to you? Of course not.
> >
> > But more than 50,000 cretins made a living with this shit in the last 100 years.
> >
> > You don't feel an IMBECILE yet? Well, keep thinking until you really start
> > to be mad about this shit.
> >
> > Then, when you're mad enough, you become A NORMAL PERSON.
> >
> > It is worth the effort to BE AWAKE.
> >
> > Congratulations.
> Time does not move...so how can it pass?

But time does move. A clock must have the property it measures...
a clock has time and it has no absolute rest.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 1:32:27 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

Spam reported.
I incite others to do the same.

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 2:19:17 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:57:36 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 1:33:44 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
>
> > I'm mocking at femtosecond or attosecond movements in STEM to MEASURE time,

> They are not doing that to 'measure time'. See below.

YES THEY ARE!

Months ago, I had a serious discussion with Paul Andersen about this matter.
I put a link from the PTB Institute (Germany), where there was an official page written by this "separate group" within
the PTB. They claimed that UTC/TAI clocks at BIMP (and any other standard body) SHOULD be adjusted at the level
of 10E-18 seconds (attoseconds), having in mind the effect of changes due to THE HEIGHT at which every atomic clock
in the world was located.

When confronted with the evidence of the PTB website, Paul just dissapeared. His usual M.O. when he can't reply.

Now, you find the thread, if interested. Just search this site using "Hertz Andersen PTB UTC TAI".

I'm not going to do it for you.

> > not about generating any process to move information on channels
> > at tera, femto or atto bits/sec. They are two completely different fields.
> Scientists (and standards bureaus) are advancing femto/atto second devices
> so as to make more precise & useful instruments (to probe further our universe, say)
> ...and to make quicker communications...
> > there is a movement of a group of fucking cretins that INSIST that UTC and TAI has to be
> > kept up to attosecond level of accuracy, FORCING the redefinition of UTC/TAI as
> > dependent on GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
> For everyday use, such timing is overkill; farmers don't need it.
> But for some people, such accuracies are desired. This won't change
> the way the farmer is farming... Thus, such accuracies satisfies 'them' and farmers alike.
> Its a win-win situation (in that sense).

On 5/27/2022 11:33 AM, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:14:43 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>> But, some cretins are working on attosecond clocks.
>
> A farmer may not need such clocks.
>
> But some 'cretins' require sending a lot of info away 'over there', really fast.
> Such clocks gives them this edge; its useful for them.
> Are you still using a 300 baud modem to watch youtube?

Three hundred baud may be something of a joke today, but I remember
when 300 was fast and 110 baud was more or less the standard. Once,
just for the experience, I used a terminal that printed out the input
(no screen) and one pressed a POTS telephone handset into the "acoustic
modem" to transfer data to and from an ordinary voice phone line.

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Analogue_modem_-_acoustic_coupler.jpg/220px-Analogue_modem_-_acoustic_coupler.jpg>

When I first started reading Usenet I was using a 300 baud modem and
I had to manually dial a phone to connect to the modem on the other end,
then turn on the modem once to other end connected and hang up the phone
quickly. At 300 baud one could actually read (with a little difficulty)
streaming Usenet without using a pager.

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 1:35:21 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 2:19:17 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:

> > They are not doing that to 'measure time'. See below.
> YES THEY ARE!

We are referring to different 'they'.

Physicists & standards bureaus are searching & experimenting ways to attain higher accuracies of their systems.
They are advancing more precise instruments. This then can be used by other individuals as per their needs.

> Months ago, I had a serious discussion with Paul Andersen about this matter.
> I put a link from the PTB Institute (Germany), where there was an official page written by this "separate group" within
> the PTB. They claimed that UTC/TAI clocks at BIMP (and any other standard body) SHOULD be adjusted at the level
> of 10E-18 seconds (attoseconds), having in mind the effect of changes due to THE HEIGHT at which every atomic clock
> in the world was located.

Yes, there are people/groups who desire this for their needs. This won't affect the farmer.

On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 19:09:44 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > ... nothing but wishful thinking combined with plain lies.
>
> This is an adequate characterization of your published posts'

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 19:14:57 UTC+2, whodat wrote:

> As I wrote earlier, perhaps humans don't have the capacity to understand
> how nature works, only small glimpses of the realities that surround us.

Or their gedanken delusions.

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 2:11:36 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

> Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
> and trying to pretend he knows something.
> Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
> a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
> See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
> it has to be formulable in the language of the
> theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
> that, poor stinker?

You already asked this and is off topic here. Learn some respect.

Spam reported.
I incite others to do the same.