? ? ?

[Rhuan Yufa Babetoff]

Volney wrote:
> On 2/21/2024 2:17 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Merci de ne pas répondre n'importe quoi à mes posts.
>
> Why are you asking the janitor to clean your toilets for free?

lol, the wankers of amrica are fucked up, abruptly lol.

𝗨𝗦_𝗗𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘀_𝗺𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮, what a gay..
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/2HpJQv3Ru7Mz

𝗬𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻_𝗵𝗶𝘁𝘀_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗸𝘀_𝗮𝗻_𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 lol
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/KqQcqgFe3Cu2

𝗨𝗦_𝗦𝗲𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀_𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘂𝗽_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆𝘆_𝘁𝗼_𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗸_𝘂𝗽_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿_𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/rzkzcFJX1lVV

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘁_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗮_𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗺_𝗺𝗮𝗻'𝘀_𝗰𝗮𝗿_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗮_𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗶_-_𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗲𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/XUNIFx3gMEIR

𝗪𝗵𝘆_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗮𝗹𝗹_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗰_𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀_𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿_𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗮𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲_𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲
𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻_𝘆𝗼𝘂_𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄_𝘆𝗼𝘂_𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/ZEge33Izi84k

𝗧𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗨𝗻𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗱𝘀_𝗢𝗻_𝗚𝗿𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗕𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀,
'𝗕𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀_𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗜𝘀_𝗔_𝗟𝗼𝘁_𝗦𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘇𝗶𝗲𝗿_𝗧𝗵𝗮𝗻_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻,_𝗔_𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗗𝗼𝘄𝗻'
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/3MZIMLhMpFW7

‘𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀’_𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻_𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮,_𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗣𝗠
Justin Trudeau wants “massive changes” in the news landscape
https://r%74.com/news/592897-justin-trudeau-mainstream-media/

As Julian said, almost all wars are started by legacy media lies -
'weapons of mass destruction' exemplify that truth. The power and agenda
of corrupt oligarchs programming millions of minds dies with the boomer
generation and there's nothing this weak little Nazi lover can do about
it. Totalitarians like him fear and despise those who speak the truth, as
Julian's plight illustrates.

Sure, a repeat convicted ethics violator is going to tell Canadians what
is what.

𝗢𝗣𝗘𝗡_𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡_𝗧𝗢_𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗧_𝗣𝗨𝗧𝗜𝗡:_𝗣𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲_𝗲𝗻𝗱_𝗼𝘂𝗿_𝘀𝘂𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴.
Dear President, when will you come to the rescue of western civilisation,
drowning under the sewerage of US zionism, and reveal the FACT, it was
sxmitic zionists and their zionist-neocons who ochestrated 9/11?
Thank you, Humanity. May the Gods of the Cosmos bless Mother Russia and
President Putin.

Justin Trudeau is an embarrassment to his father and his country.
Conspiracy theorists don't threaten MSM. The press that rigidly acts as a
stenographer for the government does.

Truddie must go along with MSM

Conspiracy Theory: Anything the cabal doesn't want you to know.

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗘𝗨_‘𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻’𝘁_𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸’_–_𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃
PM Denis Shmigal says his country has lost a third of its economy and some
3.5 million jobs since the start of the conflict with Russia
https://r%74.com/russia/592859-ukrainians-not-coming-back/

The Japs are experts at rebuilding totally flattened cities. Never were
two atom bombs better spent. Degenerate cruel animals.

12 million of Uki free-loaders have ravaged Poland and they won't go
anywhere. They contribute to nothing but rise in crime rate as well as
destroying families with young Uki females enticing married Polish men.
Economically, their long-term damage to Polish economy and social welfare
is akin to what is happening in the USA by Latin migrants.

Just another Zionist crying in his milk.

Maybe the Japs can send over some of their dying population to help out 😂

Don't worry, the EU WEF Cabal will flood Ukraine with new types of
refugees after the War. That is the plan.

[Lénárt Szakács Keresztes]

Volney wrote:

> On 2/23/2024 4:35 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> It presupposes the speed of light as invariant: I do not suppose it, I
>> demonstrate it.
>
> No, Einstein's paper postulates that the speed of light is constant in
> one single frame. He first shows (proves) that it is constant in all
> (inertial) frames. This is usually skipped over in SR discussions which
> often start with the speed of light being constant in all frames.

Mockba. You don't undrestand what "𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁" stands for in Einstine. Common
error. The relativists think it stays for something else. It's
"𝗮𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁", not "constant". Here some proofs:

🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺

send more weapons to ukrein. And money to 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆. They get the weapons,
the 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 takes the money.

this former CIA intel analyst say unprovoked, "𝗩𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮_𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗸𝘆" page 08:24
lol

𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗟_𝗥𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲-𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗻_&_𝗠𝗰𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻_-_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲¸𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗹_𝗪𝗿𝗮𝗽
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/l6ZzuoT3njkS

very funny indeed.

[Physfitfreak]

On 2/24/2024 1:58 PM, Lénárt Szakács Keresztes wrote:
> Volney wrote:
>
>> On 2/23/2024 4:35 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> It presupposes the speed of light as invariant: I do not suppose it, I
>>> demonstrate it.
>>
>> No, Einstein's paper postulates that the speed of light is constant in
>> one single frame. He first shows (proves) that it is constant in all
>> (inertial) frames. This is usually skipped over in SR discussions which
>> often start with the speed of light being constant in all frames.
>
> Mockba. You don't undrestand what "𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁" stands for in Einstine. Common
> error. The relativists think it stays for something else. It's
> "𝗮𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁", not "constant". Here some proofs:
>
> 🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🇷🇺
> 🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺
>
> send more weapons to ukrein. And money to 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆. They get the weapons,
> the 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 takes the money.
>
> this former CIA intel analyst say unprovoked, "𝗩𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮_𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗸𝘆" page 08:24
> lol
>
> 𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗟_𝗥𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲-𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗻_&_𝗠𝗰𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻_-_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲¸𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗹_𝗪𝗿𝗮𝗽
> https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/l6ZzuoT3njkS
>
> very funny indeed.


Cute you are, aren't you Hanson.

You think you can con yourself as a Russian? Hehe :)They why your ass
smell toasted when I tell Russians "West" isn't worth shit?

Fucking imbecile.



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

[Oga Shiganori Yoshikawa]

Physfitfreak wrote:

>> this former CIA intel analyst say unprovoked, "𝗩𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮_𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗸𝘆" page
>> 08:24 lol 𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗟_𝗥𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲-𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗻_&_𝗠𝗰𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻_-_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲¸𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗹_𝗪𝗿𝗮𝗽
>> https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/l6ZzuoT3njkS very funny indeed.
>
> Cute you are, aren't you Hanson.

here's the proof Einstine's relativity 𝗶𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽, and my
"𝗢𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀" Model 𝗶𝘀_𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲. Where 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆 is
exactly the mater 𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 super_positioned, the Einstine
knew nothing about. His relativity equations are kindergarten
approximations based on correlation.

𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱_𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗽𝘀𝗲_–_𝗟𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻_𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 lol, they are waking up
The US dollar 𝗶𝘀_𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱_𝗯𝘆_𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 and its fall will drag down the rest of the
world, El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele has declared
https://r%74.com/news/593090-nayib-bukele-dollar-collapse/

𝗪𝗔𝗧𝗖𝗛:_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗽𝘀_𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁_𝗮𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗔𝘃𝗱𝗲𝗲𝘃𝗸𝗮 lol
Starlink terminals used to operate Ukrainian drones were also found, the
Defense Ministry has said
https://r%74.com/russia/593074-abandoned-nato-arms-avdeevka/

western weapons are gay. Leopard2 my ass.

𝗗𝗲𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱_𝗨𝗡_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗵_𝘁𝗼_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_–_𝗨𝗦_𝗹𝗮𝘄𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿
Republican congressman Matt Gaetz has called for requiring budget cuts to
offset assistance to any overseas ally
https://r%74.com/news/593085-defund-un-to-pay-for-israel-aid-gaetz-says/

[Jon-Michael Zhong]

palsing wrote:

> Oga Shiganori Yoshikawa wrote:
>> here's the proof Einstine's relativity 𝗶𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽...
>
> How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cannot even
> spell Einstein correctly?

just ignore that, fucking stoopid. It's fucking insignificant, his name.
The Einstine was sleeping in bed with his own family. A disgrace. He was
in math, physics and mental capability, which is important. Read the
context, not the names, idiot.

🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺
here's the proof Einstine's relativity 𝗶𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽, and my
"𝗢𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀" Model 𝗶𝘀_𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲. Where
𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆 is exactly the mater 𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
super_positioned, the Einstine knew nothing about. His relativity
equations are kindergarten approximations based on correlation.
🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺🇷🇷🇺

𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗮𝗶𝗱_‘𝗴𝗼𝗲𝘀_𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁_𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸’_𝘁𝗼_𝗨𝗦_–_𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗸𝘆 lol
The money that Washington allocates for Kiev supports jobs in America, the
high-ranking State Department official has said
https://r%74.com/news/593111-nuland-us-aid-ukraine/

the 𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮 gay actor, acts again:

𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃_𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱_‘𝘃𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆_𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻’_𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗻𝗼_𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀_–_𝗭𝗮𝗹𝘂𝘇𝗵𝗻𝘆_𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗿
Civilian officials did not tell the army how many soldiers and weapons it
would receive, Viktor Nazarov has said
https://r%74.com/russia/593122-kiev-victory-plan-resource-shortage/

fucking stupid, braindead stupid:

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃
Berlin will now abandon the established rendering of the city in its
official documents
https://r%74.com/news/593093-germany-rename-kiev-official-spelling/
The city previously known in German as ‘Kiew’ will now be written as
‘Kyjiw’, the ministry said in a series of statements on X (formerly
Twitter)

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗼𝗻_𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁_𝗶𝗻_𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗯𝗮𝘀𝘀_–_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮
Kiev’s forces reportedly withdrew from the village of Lastochkino to
safeguard their supply lines and conserve manpower
https://r%74.com/russia/593113-ukraine-another-retreat-donbass/

Every day I wake up to another instance of Russia being "strategically
defeated."

"save personnel.”, best excuse of the year at its only February 🤣
After all they killed last year, nd now they are worried about their
soldiers lives.

Zelinski is now aware that his soldiers are been decimated by the stupid
military decisions he imposed on zalushny. He can't count on new recruits
so he is now asking for defensive weapons to protect his soldiers from new
Russian offensives.

The retreat of nazified Ukrainian troops will soon devolve into an all out
track meet to the Polish border.

Ukrainan arm forces retreat to take "better offensive position".
everything they do is offensive.

Joe Biden’s report to US Congress; elensky lost, retreat because Cuba
refusing to send Soviet weapons to elensky.

The terrorist gang nazi NATO training did not help...Neither did the NATO
weapons. lol. They are about to suck own dick.

the criminal Joe Biden will say it’s China’s fault.

No money no war. I guess those soldiers didn't get paid as Washington
doesn't wanna pay for its war in Ukraine. lol. In 𝗹𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹_𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺 you work
for free. They get the money. You give your blood. It's fucking written in
their papers, go there and read it, what 𝗹𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹_𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺 is.

[Wilbert Araújo]

Volney wrote:

> On 2/24/2024 9:51 PM, palsing wrote:
>> Oga Shiganori Yoshikawa wrote:
>>
>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>>> here's the proof Einstine's relativity 𝗶𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽...
>>
>> How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cannot even
>> spell Einstein correctly?
>
> That's the nymshifting troll. Emphasis on 'troll'.

that's what capitalism is. Expect your 𝙛𝙖𝙠𝙚_𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙮 shithole country to fall.
It's a sin, written in 𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗕𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲. The 𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 𝙛𝙖𝙠𝙚_𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙮 is a sin.

𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃_𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗱_𝗸𝗲𝘆_𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮_𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝘁𝗼𝗽_𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹_–_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗿
Civilian officials did not tell the army how many soldiers and weapons it
would receive, Viktor Nazarov has said
https://r%74.com/russia/593122-kiev-victory-plan-resource-shortage/

‘𝗦𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿_𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮_𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗯𝗲_𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿’:
Why Alexey Balabanov is one of the most prominent film directors in modern
Russia His works have already become modern classics, but still spark
controversy in modern Russia
https://r%74.com/pop-culture/593114-alexey-balabanov-sixty-five/

[Kennith Félix Escárcega]

Volney wrote:

> On 2/24/2024 9:51 PM, palsing wrote:
>> Oga Shiganori Yoshikawa wrote:
>>
>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>>> here's the proof Einstine's relativity 𝗶𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽...
>>
>> How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cannot even
>> spell Einstein correctly?
>
> That's the nymshifting troll. Emphasis on 'troll'.

two colors flags should not even exists. Countries flagging two colors are
occupied capitalist shithole provinces, not countries. The 𝐤𝐡𝐚𝐳𝐚𝐫_𝐠𝐨𝐲𝐬 stole
these provinces, proved by occupied governments, which are not
governments, but the so called "𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆_𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀", where peace is
antisemitic. Thought, the 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆𝘀 are not Semites, but Turkish gypsies.
They beg for money and everything.

𝗨𝗦_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮_𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗹𝗲𝘁_𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲
A Salon op-ed has blamed Washington and its allies for standing in the way
of settlement talks with Russia
https://r%74.com/news/593152-salon-oped-calls-for-ukraine-peace-talks/

but the Putin is a fuckin traitor, sending nazis in paid vacation in
Turkey. Instead of Siberia, at work. Then the Putina chose a neutral
country to run the "peace talks". What 𝗳𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗻𝗲𝘂𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 is Turkey?? The turks
are gypsy arabs.

[Maria Komáromi Forgács]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 24.02.2024 um 14:06 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>> Saying that two points A and B exist in perfect synchrony, that is to
>> say constantly exist at the same present moment, does not make sense in
>> special relativity (or at least, it should not).
>
> Points are actually timeless (in euclidean space), because 'point'
> denotes a location. And locations do not move (by definition of
> 'location').

inconclusive, 𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼_𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗲 domain points without passage of time makes no
sense. Hence space without time is 100% bullshit. They like 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆,
a gay 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 actor, as the entire 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁 is a cinema. A
cartoon to fool the public. Behind it it's nothing. Read this papers and
write a conclusion in your papers. This is how science works.

2024_𝗙𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗢𝗱𝘆𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘂𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗔𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀._𝗔𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/IRJv77O6cWkN

𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗴_𝗥𝗲𝗲𝘀𝗲_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗧𝗼𝗹𝗱_𝗠𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗣𝗵𝗼𝘁𝗼𝘀_𝗔𝗿𝗲_𝗙𝗮𝗸𝗲!
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/odq1tFQfoRc5

𝗜_𝗯𝗲𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲_𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆_𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆_𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆_𝗶𝗻_𝘇𝗲𝗿𝗼_𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/DTaMCoKNnPpy

𝗔𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗡𝗔𝗦𝗔_𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘄_𝘂𝗽._𝗜_𝗵𝗮𝗱_𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗼𝗻𝗲_𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/KMJxEbrZ2uTi

𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝗟𝗜𝗘𝗦!
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/naxHReirDhXq

𝗜𝘁𝘀_𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗻𝘆_𝗵𝗼𝘄_𝘄𝗲'𝘃𝗲_𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻_𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝘁𝗼_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗺𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝗻_50_𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/d5IznWwVk6nF

𝗖𝗟𝗜𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗧𝗘_𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲_𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲_𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮_𝗙𝗿𝗮𝘂𝗱
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/pIHz5hwEkFxO

𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝘀_𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻,_𝗧𝗲𝘅𝗮𝘀.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/L9tgU68SUHQw

𝗜_𝗕𝗘𝗧_𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗬_𝗗𝗢𝗡'𝗧_𝗧𝗘𝗔𝗖𝗛_𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦_𝗜𝗡_𝗦𝗖𝗛𝗢𝗢𝗟!
𝗪𝗮𝗻𝘁_𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗢𝗙-𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲_𝗜𝘁_𝗜𝘀_𝗠𝗨𝗦𝗧_𝗦𝗘𝗘_(2018-2019)
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/FJxc8TFqUCdJ

[Physfitfreak]

On 2/25/2024 11:10 AM, Maria Komáromi Forgács wrote:
> 𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝘀_𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻,_𝗧𝗲𝘅𝗮𝘀.
> https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/L9tgU68SUHQw


Of course they have an identical double in their labs, in case something
happens up there and they would have to improvise.

You're an idiot, Hanson. And you idiots savor and find each other too.
Problem is, you're too stupid to see how others look at you idiots.

I hope at least you're getting paid by my tax money, you _pest_. And
it's of course all clear what else you do with your time. Getting it in
the ass.

If you had decency, you'd hang yourself, Hanson. Decent individuals of
your creed jump down high story buildings.



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

[Ionio Sabbag Nassar]

Physfitfreak wrote:

>> 𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝘀_𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻,_𝗧𝗲𝘅𝗮𝘀.
>> https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/L9tgU68SUHQw
>
> Of course they have an identical double in their labs, in case something
> happens up there and they would have to improvise

LOL, this old fuck. Those publisher are different, cretin. What your
𝘁𝗮𝘅_𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆?? When they print 𝗳𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 at will, for centuries now, why the
fuck they need your money, you braindead imbecile? That's the idea, lol.

𝗜𝗳_𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆_𝗖𝗮𝗻_𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆_𝗢𝘂𝘁_𝗼𝗳_𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗪𝗵𝘆_𝗗𝗼_𝗪𝗲_𝗣𝗮𝘆_𝗧𝗮𝘅𝗲𝘀
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/6ExEBQiESvNI

𝗧𝗮𝘅𝗲𝘀_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗳𝘁!
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/QJnBzJtEBkDi

𝗨𝗦_𝗗𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘀_𝗺𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮_𝗹𝗼𝗹
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/2HpJQv3Ru7Mz

𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗮_𝗩𝘆𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗿𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝘄𝗮𝘀_𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗯𝘆_𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝗔𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗼-𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮_𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/jO5OSLeGZJfz

𝗜𝘁'𝘀_𝗢𝗞_𝘁𝗼_𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀_𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆_-_𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝗱_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝘀𝘂𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗸𝗶𝗱𝘀.
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/QHkNtLQ9yazR

𝗔𝗺𝗯𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗱𝗼𝗿_𝘁𝗼_𝗬𝘂𝗴𝗼𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗮_𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝘂𝗽_𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲_𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗕𝗼𝘀𝗻𝗶𝗮_𝘄𝗮𝗿
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/aBzpRQphlavF

then recap the proofs

2024_𝗙𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗢𝗱𝘆𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘂𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗔𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀._𝗔𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/IRJv77O6cWkN

𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗴_𝗥𝗲𝗲𝘀𝗲_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗧𝗼𝗹𝗱_𝗠𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗣𝗵𝗼𝘁𝗼𝘀_𝗔𝗿𝗲_𝗙𝗮𝗸𝗲!
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/odq1tFQfoRc5

𝗜_𝗯𝗲𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲_𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆_𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆_𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆_𝗶𝗻_𝘇𝗲𝗿𝗼_𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/DTaMCoKNnPpy

𝗔𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗡𝗔𝗦𝗔_𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘄_𝘂𝗽._𝗜_𝗵𝗮𝗱_𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗼𝗻𝗲_𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/KMJxEbrZ2uTi

𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝗟𝗜𝗘𝗦!
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/naxHReirDhXq

𝗜𝘁𝘀_𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗻𝘆_𝗵𝗼𝘄_𝘄𝗲'𝘃𝗲_𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻_𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝘁𝗼_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗺𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝗻_50_𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/d5IznWwVk6nF

𝗖𝗟𝗜𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗧𝗘_𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗼𝗳_𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲_𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲_𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮_𝗙𝗿𝗮𝘂𝗱
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/pIHz5hwEkFxO

𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝘀_𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻,_𝗧𝗲𝘅𝗮𝘀.
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/L9tgU68SUHQw

𝗜_𝗕𝗘𝗧_𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗬_𝗗𝗢𝗡'𝗧_𝗧𝗘𝗔𝗖𝗛_𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦_𝗜𝗡_𝗦𝗖𝗛𝗢𝗢𝗟!
𝗪𝗮𝗻𝘁_𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗢𝗙-𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲_𝗜𝘁_𝗜𝘀_𝗠𝗨𝗦𝗧_𝗦𝗘𝗘_(2018-2019)
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/FJxc8TFqUCdJ

[The Starmaker]

Physfitfreak wrote:
>
> On 2/25/2024 11:10 AM, Maria Komáromi Forgács wrote:
> > 𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹_𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝘀_𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻,_𝗧𝗲𝘅𝗮𝘀.
> > https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/L9tgU68SUHQw
>
> Of course they have an identical double in their labs, in case something
> happens up there and they would have to improvise.
>
> You're an idiot, Hanson. And you idiots savor and find each other too.
> Problem is, you're too stupid to see how others look at you idiots.
>
> I hope at least you're getting paid by my tax money, you _pest_. And
> it's of course all clear what else you do with your time. Getting it in
> the ass.
>
> If you had decency, you'd hang yourself, Hanson. Decent individuals of
> your creed jump down high story buildings.

I never heard of "jump down" in physics. (or any place else for that
matter)


...
don't
you
have
to
jump...
UP first???

i mean, jumping requires
a force that pushes...upwards.


i don't even understand the words..."down high"!


Is math your third language?








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

[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

𝗖𝗜𝗔_𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁_𝗵𝘂𝗴𝗲_𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝘀𝗽𝘆_𝗻𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗡𝗬𝗧
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/eRQk2S3Ro0KP

and lol

𝗔𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗺𝘀_𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗸_𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁_(𝗙𝗜𝗥𝗦𝗧_𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗢)_–_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮
The Russian military has knocked out one of the US-supplied tanks serving
with Kiev’s army, footage circulating online suggests
https://r%74.com/russia/593197-abrams-tank-ukraine/

only took a day since the first was finally spotted moving towards the
front to take one out..

The ukies probably thought they were on some "wonder weapon" until they
started seeing it burn like a piece of paper

In case you missed it, the Houthi rebels were pretty happy destroying
Abrams Tanks and nullifying Patriot Systems on a daily basis, for years...
Until the swindled Saudis finally gave up on all these US 'WonderWeapons'
SCAMS. LoL.

𝗗𝗲𝗻𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸_𝗱𝗿𝗼𝗽𝘀_𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱_𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺_𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/NKxUy7Pep61l

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲’𝘀_𝗔𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗺𝘀_𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗸𝘀_𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗻_𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲_𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀_–_𝗞𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗹𝗶𝗻
The first US-supplied Ukrainian M1 Abrams has been destroyed the conflict
https://r%74.com/russia/593218-ukraine-abrams-tanks-peskov/

𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗯𝗮𝘀𝘀_𝗰𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲
Protecting the region from Kiev’s attacks was one of the key reasons for
the Ukraine conflict, according to Moscow
https://r%74.com/russia/593166-putin-zelensky-donbass-ceasefire/

Zelensky works for the CIA, not Ukraine. Fact

You don't need 20 years to pull back troops. Zelensky was clearly already
taking coke and lying in 2019. Very right Mr. Putin did not trust him.

We know who wanted the War. Just remember Covid stopped on the 24th Feb
2022 and we all know why.

I don't get it. It seems Zelensky is admitting that Ukraine provoked
Russia into this conflict.

[Thomas Heger]

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.

And you cannot define things in a circular fashion.

Here you need time first and then can say something about entropy, but
cannot use entropy to define time, anymore.

I would say, that time is local and a function of the local environment,
which dictates, what local observers could see and take as time.

So: the local environment is a place in the universe, where local
observers are stable entities and see the local universe, which they can
measure with local means.

But if you would go somewhere else (like to Alpha Centaury), you would
see a different universe, because the local environment there uses a
different time.


TH

[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:

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.

[Thomas Heger]

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

[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.
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 B. Andersen]

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/

[Ross Finlayson]

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, ...."

[Maciej Woźniak]

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.

[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".

> 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!

[Paul B. Andersen]

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/

[Maciej Woźniak]

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.

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

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. :-)

[Maciej Woźniak]

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.

[Michelle Tatár Buzás]

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 !!

[Maciej Woźniak]

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.

[Volney]

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)

[Maciej Woźniak]

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?

[Bennie Müller Madarász]

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

[Thomas Heger]

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

[Boris Kuang She]

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!

[Maciej Woźniak]

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.

[The Starmaker]

=?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]

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.

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> 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.


What time is it ...now?

It's always Now.

If a clock moves one second
it tells you the time now..

next second
it tells you the time now..

next second
it tells you the time now..

next second
it tells you the time now..

it's always...Now.


What time is it ...now?



it's always...Now.


What now is it?


the second before is not now,
it's in the past..it doesn't exist.

How do you measure a second before?














--
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]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> What time is it ...now?
>
> It's always Now.
>
> If a clock moves one second
> it tells you the time now..
>
> next second
> it tells you the time now..
>
> next second
> it tells you the time now..
>
> next second
> it tells you the time now..
>
> it's always...Now.
>
> What time is it ...now?
>
> it's always...Now.
>
> What now is it?
>
> the second before is not now,
> it's in the past..it doesn't exist.
>
> How do you measure a second before?


I just took the battery
out of the clock.
Time has stopped.

No more time.

I don't know what time it is ...Now.

wait a minute...isn't always Now????

i don't need a clock
to tell me what time
it is now, it's always now!


i need to put the battery back in
so i'll know what time it is...now.

okay, i know what time it is now.

it's 12 O'clock now.

i got the real time..

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

[Thomas Heger]

Am 06.03.2024 um 08:44 schrieb The Starmaker:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> What time is it ...now?
>
> It's always Now.
>
> If a clock moves one second
> it tells you the time now..
>
> next second
> it tells you the time now..
>
> next second
> it tells you the time now..
>
> next second
> it tells you the time now..
>
> it's always...Now.
>
>
> What time is it ...now?
>
>
>
> it's always...Now.
>
>
> What now is it?
>
>
> the second before is not now,
> it's in the past..it doesn't exist.
>
> How do you measure a second before?
>
The flow of time is assumed to be constant, hence constant frequency
processes are assumed to exist.

But relativity claims, this is not the case and time can shrink and expand.

But how could we know, if time runs slower, if all clocks also run
slower????

I personally support the idea of local time, which is always flowing
forward in the local environment, but which is not universal.

The transit from one 'time domaine' to another is 'a curve in the
spacetime continuum'.

('a curved path in the spacetime continuum' is a fancy name for
'acceleration'.)

So acceleration has an effect on the flow and direction of the local
time in an accelerated environment.

We can actually see this in the so called 'Pioneer anomaly' if we regard
the Pioneer probe as heavily accelerated (in rocket start and fly byes).


TH

TH

[Jim Burns]

On 3/6/2024 3:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.03.2024 um 08:44 schrieb The Starmaker:

>> [...]
>
> The flow of time is assumed to be constant,
> hence constant frequency processes are
> assumed to exist.

Once there was a rubber sheeting manufacturer with
inconsistent equipment.
Where the sheeting was measured out
to be packaged and sold,
the tension on the tape was never the same.
One day, twice the tension and half as much
sheeting per foot.
The next day,
half the tension, twice the sheeting.

But the manufacturer used some of the sheeting itself
as a ruler to measure out a package.worth of
rubber sheeting, and kept the ruler at the same tension,
whatever it was, as the sheeting being packaged.

The changing ruler measured the changing sheeting
but the packages going out the door were the same,
because they changed the same.

And they all lived happily ever after.

> The flow of time is assumed to be constant,
> hence constant frequency processes are
> assumed to exist.

I think that a less stringent assumption
is made, and is sufficient,
that all these processes have constant lengths
_when measured by each other_

And that sort of constancy can actually be disproved.
I think that trying to do that is part of the job of
various national entities around the world.

[Barros Romão]

Jim Burns wrote:

> On 3/6/2024 3:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> The flow of time is assumed to be constant, hence constant frequency
>> processes are assumed to exist.
>
> Once there was a rubber sheeting manufacturer with inconsistent
> equipment.

that's why atomic clocks are used, assuming shorter periods / duty_cycles
outputs more accuracy, to be feed to a clock.

𝗔𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗔𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗺𝘀_𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗸_𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗯𝗮𝘀𝘀_–_𝗠𝗢𝗗
The duel between a T-72B3 and US-supplied armor occurred not far from
Avdeevka, the Russian Defense Ministry has said
https://r%74.com/russia/593871-abrams-tank-destroyed-donbass/

Trump is right - the Mexicans could take the US over - Abrams won't stop
them! A brigade of illegal dishwashers is all they need.

Abrams arena is now open - on display Americrap military hardware at its
very best!

'The tank “was knocked out in one shot by the crew of a T-72 B3,”'

notice that a 1972 Russian tank (that's the meaning of "72") worth more
than a brand new American tank.

[Rózsa Szőllősi]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 06.03.2024 um 08:44 schrieb The Starmaker:
>> the second before is not now, it's in the past..it doesn't exist.
>> How do you measure a second before?
>>
> The flow of time is assumed to be constant, hence constant frequency
> processes are assumed to exist. But relativity claims, this is not the
> case and time can shrink and expand. But how could we know, if time runs
> slower, if all clocks also run slower????

lol. Incredibly, these usenet users relativists are abandoning relativity
big time. Not a wonder. That Einstine was a disgusting excuse for a human
being, abandoning his family, his children and his intelligent wife, for
what. To sleep in bed with his cousin. What a fucking idiot. I doubt he
had the basic brain required to manipulate relativity. Not even his
theory. Obviously. Abandoning relativity?? Give me a break.


𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆’𝘀_𝘄𝗶𝗳𝗲_𝘀𝗻𝘂𝗯𝘀_𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻_–_𝗪𝗮𝗣𝗼
The Ukrainian first lady has reportedly turned down an invitation to
Thursday’s State of the Union address, citing a tight schedule
https://r%74.com/news/593867-ukrainian-first-lady-snubs-biden-invitation/

Does not want biden sniffing her up anymore most likely

the wife of the ukraininan president has an office?! lol... She is not
elected nor with a public job. Her only "achievement" was to marry the
fucking actor, acting president with his former 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺.

So Zelenskaya hates Navalny more than she loves Biden?

Give her the $60 billion first... something for something

[Maciej Wozniak]

W dniu 06.03.2024 o 09:14, Thomas Heger pisze:
> Am 06.03.2024 um 08:44 schrieb The Starmaker:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> What time is it ...now?
>>
>> It's always Now.
>>
>> If a clock moves one second
>> it tells you the time now..
>>
>> next second
>> it tells you the time now..
>>
>> next second
>> it tells you the time now..
>>
>> next second
>> it tells you the time now..
>>
>> it's always...Now.
>>
>>
>> What time is it ...now?
>>
>>
>>
>> it's always...Now.
>>
>>
>> What now is it?
>>
>>
>> the second before is not now,
>> it's in the past..it doesn't exist.
>>
>> How do you measure a second before?
>>
> The flow of time is assumed to be constant,

Assumed by whom?
It usually is, but exceptions happen.

> I personally support the idea of local time, which is always flowing
> forward in the local environment, but which is not universal.

You may support it, it's still stupid.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 06.03.2024 um 16:29 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> W dniu 06.03.2024 o 09:14, Thomas Heger pisze:
>> Am 06.03.2024 um 08:44 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> What time is it ...now?
>>>
>>> It's always Now.
>>>
>>> If a clock moves one second
>>> it tells you the time now..
>>>
>>> next second
>>> it tells you the time now..
>>>
>>> next second
>>> it tells you the time now..
>>>
>>> next second
>>> it tells you the time now..
>>>
>>> it's always...Now.
>>>
>>>
>>> What time is it ...now?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> it's always...Now.
>>>
>>>
>>> What now is it?
>>>
>>>
>>> the second before is not now,
>>> it's in the past..it doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> How do you measure a second before?
>>>
>> The flow of time is assumed to be constant,
>
> Assumed by whom?
> It usually is, but exceptions happen.
>
>> I personally support the idea of local time, which is always flowing
>> forward in the local environment, but which is not universal.
>
> You may support it, it's still stupid.
>

I needed this assumption (which stems imho from Poincaré) for my 'book':

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


The idea is called 'structured spacetime'.

There spacetime of GR is assumed to exist, while material objects are
'timelike stable patterns' (made of and within spacetime of GR).

This construct was used to connect GR and QM, because it would allow
'relativistic particles'.


The idea is, that matter is only matter within the own 'time domain',
while being perceived as radiation outside.


It's kind of tricky, but would allow to connect to put GR and QM into a
single framework.

The unusual approach was, that I started at the side of GR and tried to
build particles (of QM) out of spacetime (instead of trying to build
gravity from particles).

TH

[Maciej Wozniak]

W dniu 07.03.2024 o 07:57, Thomas Heger pisze:

>>> The flow of time is assumed to be constant,
>>
>> Assumed by whom?
>> It usually is, but exceptions happen.
>>
>>> I personally support the idea of local time, which is always flowing
>>> forward in the local environment, but which is not universal.
>>
>> You may support it, it's still stupid.
>>
>
> I needed this assumption (which stems imho from Poincaré) for my 'book':

And GPS staff needed the opposite assumption
for their system to work. What do you find
more important - your "book" or working
GPS?

[Thomas Heger]

Am 07.03.2024 um 15:41 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> W dniu 07.03.2024 o 07:57, Thomas Heger pisze:
>
>>>> The flow of time is assumed to be constant,
>>>
>>> Assumed by whom?
>>> It usually is, but exceptions happen.
>>>
>>>> I personally support the idea of local time, which is always flowing
>>>> forward in the local environment, but which is not universal.
>>>
>>> You may support it, it's still stupid.
>>>
>>
>> I needed this assumption (which stems imho from Poincaré) for my 'book':
>
> And GPS staff needed the opposite assumption
> for their system to work. What do you find
> more important - your "book" or working
> GPS?

No, because the GPS does not violate my assumptions.

GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the same
'time-domain' (uses Earth time).

But remote celestial object do not necessarily do, and may eventually
use an axis of time, which has an angle towards our time.

(To understand this picture of an 'angle of the axis of time' you would
need to read my 'book'.)

For instance I explain the Pioneer anomaly this way:

the Pioneer probe has been acceleated heavily, due to rocket start from
Earth and a number of fly-byes. This caused the local time-axis of the
probe to tilt a little bit away from Earth time.

So the probe is too slow (in Earth measures), while it is perfectly ok
in its own measures.


This is similar to e.g. two equal trains on two tracks in a small angle,
which start parallel and then curve a little away.

Now seen from each train the other is seeminly too slow, because the
tracks are no longer parallel, but not because the other one is slow.


TH

[Maciej Wozniak]

W dniu 08.03.2024 o 09:12, Thomas Heger pisze:
> Am 07.03.2024 um 15:41 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>> W dniu 07.03.2024 o 07:57, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>
>>>>> The flow of time is assumed to be constant,
>>>>
>>>> Assumed by whom?
>>>> It usually is, but exceptions happen.
>>>>
>>>>> I personally support the idea of local time, which is always flowing
>>>>> forward in the local environment, but which is not universal.
>>>>
>>>> You may support it, it's still stupid.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I needed this assumption (which stems imho from Poincaré) for my 'book':
>>
>> And GPS staff needed the opposite assumption
>> for their system to work. What do you find
>> more important - your "book" or working
>> GPS?
>
> No, because the GPS does not violate my assumptions.

Yes, it does. You may pretend it doesn't - it doesn't
impress me the slightest.


>
> GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the same
> 'time-domain' (uses Earth time).

What is the range of Earth time, then?

>
> But remote celestial object do not necessarily do, and may eventually
> use an axis of time, which has an angle towards our time.

What kind of object does use time?
Does a rock do? What for?

[Thomas Heger]

Am 08.03.2024 um 10:10 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> W dniu 08.03.2024 o 09:12, Thomas Heger pisze:
>> Am 07.03.2024 um 15:41 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>> W dniu 07.03.2024 o 07:57, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>>
>>>>>> The flow of time is assumed to be constant,
>>>>>
>>>>> Assumed by whom?
>>>>> It usually is, but exceptions happen.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I personally support the idea of local time, which is always flowing
>>>>>> forward in the local environment, but which is not universal.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may support it, it's still stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I needed this assumption (which stems imho from Poincaré) for my
>>>> 'book':
>>>
>>> And GPS staff needed the opposite assumption
>>> for their system to work. What do you find
>>> more important - your "book" or working
>>> GPS?
>>
>> No, because the GPS does not violate my assumptions.
>
> Yes, it does. You may pretend it doesn't - it doesn't
> impress me the slightest.
>
>
>>
>> GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the same
>> 'time-domain' (uses Earth time).
>
> What is the range of Earth time, then?

If timer is local (opposite to 'universal'), than Earth time is valid on
Earth or nearby.

In other locations even the direction of time does not need to be the same.

This means:

there might be regions of the universe, where time runs backwards from
our perspective.

Such regions are invisible and may eventually drift right through our
world and we could not see them.

I use the catch phrase 'universe around the corner' for this effect
(instead of 'parallel universe').


>>
>> But remote celestial object do not necessarily do, and may eventually
>> use an axis of time, which has an angle towards our time.
>
> What kind of object does use time?

I regard matter as 'timelike stable patterns'.

This includes 'timelike', hence matter is 'frame dependent'.

This is a very unusual concept, hence you should read about my idea in
my 'book':

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



TH
> Does a rock do? What for?
>

[Bogdan Guleichik Balagul]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 08.03.2024 um 10:10 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>> GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the same
>>> 'time-domain' (uses Earth time).
>> What is the range of Earth time, then?
>
> If timer is local (opposite to 'universal'), than Earth time is valid on
> Earth or nearby. In other locations even the direction of time does not
> need to be the same. This means: there might be regions of the universe,
> where time runs backwards from our perspective.

there are no offsets in time, hence Entropy, my friend. You must be
talking about an unknown, illogic domain or manifold. You don't undrestand
mathematics that much, do you?? You stupid gearmons.

𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱_𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻_𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿_–_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 lol
Dmitry Kuleba may soon lose his job, as Kiev grows unhappy about the
diplomatic service
https://r%74.com/russia/593980-kuleba-dismissal-reports-ukraine/

remove 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 actor zelensky and sieze all his overseas increasing
wealth

Kuleba forgot to pay 10% to the big guy, the bidona.

First coke head porn star dictator, who needs ministers that you have to
share the corrupt kickbacks with?

The dwarf should just close the department of begging altogether...the end
is near.

It's a fiasco in Kiev and in Washington DC... Things farts apart.

Paranoia often comes with snorting too much coke.

Great! 𝗠𝘂𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 and get a nice retirement
villas in the U.K just like Zaluzny did. You will never live a peaceful
day in your life, they are all dead men walking. They betrayed their
people for handouts.

joe Biden is in fact the president of Ukraine. Zelensky is just the
beggar, the nazi dog raised and fed to bite for Joe Biden. Joe Biden has
turned Ukraine into a nazi entity, just like the Jewish entity in the ME,
to destroy the humanity for Joe Biden.

Start counting end days for this comedian - Zelensky.

For a 42 year old, he looks a lot closer to mid-50s. This happens when
you’re forced to partake in the cocaine parties with your boss

Kuleba is being fired because he asked Wang Yi for help at the Munich
security conference. Zelensky has gone mad. Kuleba is no good but at least
recognize reality.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 09.03.2024 um 09:04 schrieb Bogdan Guleichik Balagul:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Am 08.03.2024 um 10:10 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>> GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the same
>>>> 'time-domain' (uses Earth time).
>>> What is the range of Earth time, then?
>>
>> If timer is local (opposite to 'universal'), than Earth time is valid on
>> Earth or nearby. In other locations even the direction of time does not
>> need to be the same. This means: there might be regions of the universe,
>> where time runs backwards from our perspective.
>
> there are no offsets in time, hence Entropy, my friend. You must be
> talking about an unknown, illogic domain or manifold. You don't undrestand
> mathematics that much, do you?? You stupid gearmons.
>


???

If I understand you correct (what is difficult), you try to argue, that
entropy is the reason for time per se.

Well,possibly this is true, possibly not.

I think, that time is based on a process of counting something, which
occurs always with the same frequency.

Unfortunately, this "occurs always with the same frequency" is very
difficult to prove.

Since certain atoms emit waves with always a certain frequency, I would
suggest, that such atoms are 'frame dependent' themselves.

This would create a 'time domaine', which serves as local environment
and dictates the time there.

Now no object can escape its own 'bubble', because in other bubbles they
could get anihilated by the strange time in such other worlds.


TH

[Hania Pusztai Sebestyén]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 09.03.2024 um 09:04 schrieb Bogdan Guleichik Balagul:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Am 08.03.2024 um 10:10 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>> GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the same
>>>>> 'time-domain' (uses Earth time).
>>>> What is the range of Earth time, then?
>>>
>>> If timer is local (opposite to 'universal'), than Earth time is valid
>>> on Earth or nearby. In other locations even the direction of time does
>>> not need to be the same. This means: there might be regions of the
>>> universe,
>>> where time runs backwards from our perspective.
>>
>> there are no offsets in time, hence Entropy, my friend. You must be
>> talking about an unknown, illogic domain or manifold. You don't
>> undrestand mathematics that much, do you?? You stupid gearmons.
>
> ???
> If I understand you correct (what is difficult), you try to argue, that
> entropy is the reason for time per se.
> Well,possibly this is true, possibly not.
> I think, that time is based on a process of counting something, which
> occurs always with the same frequency.

you don't undrestand, as said above, it's because you are uneducated and
stupid. There is no ˝𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝘆_𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗶𝘀_𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲,_𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝘆_𝗻𝗼𝘁˝ in physics. Idiot. That
statement does NOT exists.

𝗨𝗞_𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗼𝗻_𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲_𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲 lol
The UK is open to “all options” when it comes to achieving “maximum
effect” for Ukraine, David Cameron has said
https://r%74.com/news/594002-london-solution-taurus-kiev-cameron/

For free? How much are you going to pay Germany to take the blame for your
limey rat crimes? You want them to build all this for you, AFTER you
bombed Germany's access to resources? If I was Germany I would only accept
payment off of you in gold.

come on German's, do what your daddy says

UK bastards are the most insidious backstabbers historically, their hatred
for Russia has hit sewer level and they want NATO queers to get involved
as cannon fodder in this Anglo-Zionist war on Russia. They have just
agreed to provide 10,000 drones to the Kiev Jew cabal to wage
indiscriminate terror on Russian cities and civilian infrastructure.
Russia can not remain passive anymore and has to impose a cost on these
Anglo and Jew bastards.

So Cameron had to fool a woman do dirty jobs for him. Cameron is typical
English male: filthy, hypocrite & no male lust.

Cameron the creep has decided to attack the German filly Bareback with an
exceptionally short range weapon personally 🤣

Cowardice UK only bullies Houthis. But I don’t think Britons will have
chance to win poor Houthis. No boots on ground or no poop on ground,
cowardice Britons?

[Thomas Heger]

Am 10.03.2024 um 09:03 schrieb Hania Pusztai Sebestyén:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Am 09.03.2024 um 09:04 schrieb Bogdan Guleichik Balagul:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 08.03.2024 um 10:10 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>>> GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the same
>>>>>> 'time-domain' (uses Earth time).
>>>>> What is the range of Earth time, then?
>>>>
>>>> If timer is local (opposite to 'universal'), than Earth time is valid
>>>> on Earth or nearby. In other locations even the direction of time does
>>>> not need to be the same. This means: there might be regions of the
>>>> universe,
>>>> where time runs backwards from our perspective.
>>>
>>> there are no offsets in time, hence Entropy, my friend. You must be
>>> talking about an unknown, illogic domain or manifold. You don't
>>> undrestand mathematics that much, do you?? You stupid gearmons.
>>
>> ???
>> If I understand you correct (what is difficult), you try to argue, that
>> entropy is the reason for time per se.
>> Well,possibly this is true, possibly not.
>> I think, that time is based on a process of counting something, which
>> occurs always with the same frequency.
>
> you don't undrestand, as said above, it's because you are uneducated and
> stupid. There is no ˝𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝘆_𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗶𝘀_𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲,_𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝘆_𝗻𝗼𝘁˝ in physics. Idiot. That
> statement does NOT exists.
>

No, such a statement does exist, because I had written 'possibly this is
true, possibly not'.

The actual fact is unknown, at least by me, hence we are allowed to
speculate.

Possibly time has to do with entropy, possibly not.

If you want an answer to this riddle ('what time actually is'), you need
to find it yourself.




TH

[Connie Bairashevski Balashoff]

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> stupid. There is no ˝𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝘆_𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗶𝘀_𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲,_𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝘆_𝗻𝗼𝘁˝ in physics.
>> Idiot. That statement does NOT exists.
>
> No, such a statement does exist, because I had written 'possibly this is
> true, possibly not'. The actual fact is unknown, at least by me, hence
> we are allowed to speculate. Possibly time has to do with entropy,
> possibly not. If you want an answer to this riddle ('what time actually
> is'), you need to find it yourself.

not in physics, my friend. Try 𝙣𝙚𝙬_𝙖𝙜𝙚, 𝙘𝙖𝙗𝙗𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙝 etc, but that's stupid. The
time used in physics is pretty well defined, 𝗔𝗡𝗗_𝗨𝗦𝗘𝗗, by consent. You
don't want to fuck everybody in their ass, with other time, will you??

𝗧𝗲𝗵𝗿𝗮𝗻_𝗶𝘀_𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲_𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻_𝗡𝗲𝘄_𝗬𝗼𝗿𝗸_–_𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗸𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮 lol
As Beijing helps revamp the Iranian capital’s metro system, a bigger
picture of counter-hegemony takes shape
https://r%74.com/news/594268-tehran-infrastructure-china-help/

𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗺𝘂𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱_‘𝗯𝗼𝗼𝘁𝘀_𝗼𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱’_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘀_–_𝗟𝗲_𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲 lol
President Emmanuel Macron’s transition from dove to hawk began last
summer, the newspaper wrote
https://r%74.com/news/594291-france-considering-boots-june/

‘𝗪𝗲_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗮𝘁_𝘄𝗮𝗿’_–_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿_𝗨𝗞_𝘀𝗽𝘆_𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗲𝗳 lol
Britain needs to make “tough choices” to be able to counter the “threats”
posed by Russia and China, a former head of MI6 has said
https://r%74.com/news/594300-uk-ukraine-mi6-war/

the 𝗩𝗶𝗰𝗸𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮_𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱, knighted prafesar at Columbia Univ, on teaching
"𝗛𝗼𝘄_𝘁𝗼_𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘄_𝗮_𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰_𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆_𝗮_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆", or

"𝗛𝗼𝘄_𝘁𝗼_𝗱𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲_𝗮_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆_𝗲𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲", or

"𝗵𝗼𝘄_𝘁𝗼_𝗯𝗼𝗺𝗯_𝗽𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆_𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝗿𝘂𝗿𝗲_𝗮𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗯𝗼𝗼𝘁𝗼𝗺_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘀𝗲𝗮,
𝗯𝘆_𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲_𝗱𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻_𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗺,_𝘁𝗼_𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗺_𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗵𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲,_𝘁𝗼_𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗺𝘂𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹".

Britain is engaged in a “gray war” - for centuries, the only color they
know, wankers and pigs. I read, they fuck (copulate) the cows and pigs
they eat, in advance. It's not illegal.

You will be bloody, very Bloody! As a former slaves master, destroyed many
Nations, you deserves total deaths in UK.

you are a 'democracy',.... sell all the kings castles, lol

[Thomas Heger]

Am 15.03.2024 um 12:19 schrieb Connie Bairashevski Balashoff:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>> stupid. There is no ˝𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝘆_𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗶𝘀_𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲,_𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝘆_𝗻𝗼𝘁˝ in physics.
>>> Idiot. That statement does NOT exists.
>>
>> No, such a statement does exist, because I had written 'possibly this is
>> true, possibly not'. The actual fact is unknown, at least by me, hence
>> we are allowed to speculate. Possibly time has to do with entropy,
>> possibly not. If you want an answer to this riddle ('what time actually
>> is'), you need to find it yourself.
>
> not in physics, my friend. Try 𝙣𝙚𝙬_𝙖𝙜𝙚, 𝙘𝙖𝙗𝙗𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙝 etc, but that's stupid. The
> time used in physics is pretty well defined, 𝗔𝗡𝗗_𝗨𝗦𝗘𝗗, by consent. You


I'm not quite certain, what you are trying to say.

In physics time is a quantity and measured in seconds. But that does not
say very much about how long a second is and why time exists in the
first place.


TH

[Chellos Leontarakis]

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> not in physics, my friend. Try 𝙣𝙚𝙬_𝙖𝙜𝙚, 𝙘𝙖𝙗𝙗𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙝 etc, but that's
>> stupid. The time used in physics is pretty well defined, 𝗔𝗡𝗗_𝗨𝗦𝗘𝗗, by
>> consent. You
>
> I'm not quite certain, what you are trying to say.
> In physics time is a quantity and measured in seconds. But that does not
> say very much about how long a second is and why time exists in the
> first place.

𝗶𝘁'𝘀_𝗡𝗢𝗧 a quantity, me frendo, but a fundamental dimension of the world.
Nothing in physics is possible, nor happens, without time as a dimension.
You are fucking uneducated, in a nazi country where education is
supposedly to be free. I mean, paid by taxes. And yet, another despicable
卐🕎_𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶_𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆_🕎卐_wanting to destroy a country.

𝗛𝘂𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝗯𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁𝘀_‘𝗹𝗲𝗳𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘀𝘁’_𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗲𝗰𝗵_𝗯𝘆_𝗨𝗦_𝗲𝗻𝘃𝗼𝘆
A long list of grievances presented by the US ambassador has attracted a
frosty reception in Budapest
https://r%74.com/news/594357-us-envoy-leftist-activist/
US Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman (M) in Budapest on February 5,
2024. © Getty Images / PA / Marton Monus

So expell. him persona non grata!

Do not blame 70% of Americans who had their government illegally stolen
in a fraudulent election. Much like Nazi Germany America is in the grip
of criminals and kleptocrats.

at least, the Napoleone was not gay.

Nobody really likes Americans, they're abhorrent in every way.

“community of democracies,” That Is Rich

Pressman tells Hungary not to interfere in the affairs of others, while
showing no sign of hypocrisy whilst interfering himself!! The dog should
return to its kennel.

Come on Orban, you have stood alone so now ACT alone; kick out the yanks
completely, military, spies and diplomats!!

[Thomas Heger]

Am 17.03.2024 um 10:05 schrieb Chellos Leontarakis:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>> not in physics, my friend. Try 𝙣𝙚𝙬_𝙖𝙜𝙚, 𝙘𝙖𝙗𝙗𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙝 etc, but that's
>>> stupid. The time used in physics is pretty well defined, 𝗔𝗡𝗗_𝗨𝗦𝗘𝗗, by
>>> consent. You
>>
>> I'm not quite certain, what you are trying to say.
>> In physics time is a quantity and measured in seconds. But that does not
>> say very much about how long a second is and why time exists in the
>> first place.
>
> 𝗶𝘁'𝘀_𝗡𝗢𝗧 a quantity, me frendo, but a fundamental dimension of the world.
I always distinguish between a quantity and the measurement of this
quantity.

E.g.

'length' is a (physical) quantity and is measured in meters.

The meter is therefore not a quantity, but a measure (acutally a 'unit
of measurement').

The term 'dimension' enters into the picture through mathematics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_(physics)

"In engineering and science, dimensional analysis is the analysis of the
relationships between different physical quantities by identifying their
base quantities (such as length, mass, time, and electric current) and
units of measurement (such as metres and grams) and tracking these
dimensions as calculations or comparisons are performed. "

It is here not advised to confuse the different uses of the term
'dimension'. E.g. Euclidean space has three dimensions and spacetime
four. But these dimensions are not the same.

TH


...

[Péter Juhász]

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> 𝗶𝘁'𝘀_𝗡𝗢𝗧 a quantity, me frendo, but a fundamental dimension of the
>> world.
>
> I always distinguish between a quantity and the measurement of this
> quantity. E.g. 'length' is a (physical) quantity and is measured in
> meters.

no, you don't. The meter is the length, not the space, which is a
dimension. You use space to count lengths, here meters.

https://thep%65%6fplesvoice.tv/ lol unbelievable

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗚𝗼𝘃’𝘁_𝗧𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻_𝗧𝗼_𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱_𝗪𝗮𝗿_3:_“𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿_𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀_𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗗𝗶𝗲
March 20, 2024 Sean Adl-Tabatabai 0
German children have been instructed by the government to “prepare for
World War 3” and expect loved ones, including their parents, to
potentially die in battle. According to Germany’s education Minister
Bettina Stark-Watzinger, children in […]

fucking braindead, my butt. Assholes. When your lying corrupt gov wants
you dead, for the lies they emit. They bomb their industry and wants you
dead, my butt.

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻_‘𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗯𝗲_𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘄𝗮𝗿’_–_𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿
Military officers should visit schools to build “relaxed” relations with
students, Bettina Stark-Watzinger has suggested
https://r%74.com/news/594550-germany-chidren-prepare-war/

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_‘𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱’_𝗯𝘆_𝗨𝗦_𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸_𝗼𝗳_𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗻𝘀_–_𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗼 lol
Kiev wants to know under what conditions it could avoid paying off the
potential debt, the paper’s source claims
https://r%74.com/russia/594615-ukraine-offended-us-loan-idea/

Ukraine was blinded by greed and put all it's eggs in one basket that US-
led Nato would prevail militarily and economically. Now reality has set in
and he is coming down from a drug induced high.

Silly jewlensky, jews don't need to repay loans, talk to Israel.

About 100 years ago Americans promised $50.000 dollars to Nikola Tesla for
his work. They later told him that "𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳
𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗼𝘂𝗿" lol

The thief wants to dictate the terms & non-payable status,...enjoy that
USA citizens??

The US Scam has come home to roost.....Poor whining Ukraine. Did they
really think that $100B was gift.... Thick or what? Your next 100 years is
going to be dire!

[Thomas Heger]

Am 21.03.2024 um 14:46 schrieb Péter Juhász:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>> 𝗶𝘁'𝘀_𝗡𝗢𝗧 a quantity, me frendo, but a fundamental dimension of the
>>> world.
>>
>> I always distinguish between a quantity and the measurement of this
>> quantity. E.g. 'length' is a (physical) quantity and is measured in
>> meters.
>
> no, you don't. The meter is the length, not the space, which is a
> dimension. You use space to count lengths, here meters.

I actually do, because 'meter' is the name of a unit, which is used to
measure 'length'.

The length is a physical quantity, which is measured in meters (in the
SI-unit-system), but the meter is not length (because it is a unit and
not a quantity).


'Space' needs an additional qualifier, because it can have several
different uses.

Apparently, you want to address the physical space around you with 'space'.

This space is actually three-dimensional.

If you like to eliminate time-dependency, you end up with Euclidean space.

That space has three dimensions of the type length.


...


TH

[TReena Pooja Kishan]

Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> I always distinguish between a quantity and the measurement of this
>>> quantity. E.g. 'length' is a (physical) quantity and is measured in
>>> meters.
>>
>> no, you don't. The meter is the length, not the space, which is a
>> dimension. You use space to count lengths, here meters.
>
> I actually do, because 'meter' is the name of a unit, which is used to
> measure 'length'.

ludicrous. The meter is a length in itself, and without space you have no
meter. Undrestand this, space and time are not quantities you measure. You
use them to measure something else. For instance, your government is a
whore. They never stop stealing from other countries with that fake
𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗻𝘆_𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 they produce.

𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮_𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘀_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗱𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁_𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿_‘𝗯𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁_𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲’
New Delhi lodges formal protest with Berlin after Germany’s comments on
the arrest in India of opposition leader Arvind Kejriwal
https://r%74.com/india/594782-india-summons-german-diplomat-over-kejriwal/

little nazis in germany still think they can lecture the world on justice
etc? lol

Germany has gone crazy after Americans bombed their oil pipeline from
Russia.

Germany, the vassal State of US Imperialist is just speaking for it's
Master. so true indeed, lol

Don't allow Western countries to get involve in your matters. If you gave
them a finger they would take the whole arm. So not even for prudence give
them a break and if you does you lose.

[Maciej Wozniak]

W dniu 09.03.2024 o 08:20, Thomas Heger pisze:
> Am 08.03.2024 um 10:10 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>> W dniu 08.03.2024 o 09:12, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>> Am 07.03.2024 um 15:41 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>> W dniu 07.03.2024 o 07:57, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>>>
>>>>>>> The flow of time is assumed to be constant,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assumed by whom?
>>>>>> It usually is, but exceptions happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I personally support the idea of local time, which is always flowing
>>>>>>> forward in the local environment, but which is not universal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may support it, it's still stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I needed this assumption (which stems imho from Poincaré) for my
>>>>> 'book':
>>>>
>>>> And GPS staff needed the opposite assumption
>>>> for their system to work. What do you find
>>>> more important - your "book" or working
>>>> GPS?
>>>
>>> No, because the GPS does not violate my assumptions.
>>
>> Yes, it does. You may pretend it doesn't - it doesn't
>> impress me the slightest.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the same
>>> 'time-domain' (uses Earth time).
>>
>> What is the range of Earth time, then?
>
> If timer is local (opposite to 'universal'), than Earth time is valid on
> Earth or nearby.

So - for every observation made from Earth or nearby?

>> What kind of object does use time?
>
> I regard matter as 'timelike stable patterns'.

I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
does use time? Does a rock do? What for?

[Thomas Heger]

Am 10.03.2024 um 11:35 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

>>>>
>>>> GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the same
>>>> 'time-domain' (uses Earth time).
>>>
>>> What is the range of Earth time, then?
>>
>> If timer is local (opposite to 'universal'), than Earth time is valid
>> on Earth or nearby.
>
> So - for every observation made from Earth or nearby?

No: time is local everywhere.

The set of all places, which could use the same time are called 'time
domaine' (in my 'book').

This is the case for all places on the surface of planet Earth.

Other places have other times, which is not necessarily parallel.

Extreme cases are places, where time runs backwards (from our perspective).

Also places are possible, where matter radiates (in our view), while
remains usual matter, if seen in the own frame of reference.

>>> What kind of object does use time?
>>
>> I regard matter as 'timelike stable patterns'.
>
> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
>


'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects have to
fullfil.

Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain 'axis of
time'), time enters into the picture, if we have material objects.

All material objects within a certain 'time domain' build the set of
material objects, which an observer in that 'time domaine' would regard
as real (material).

Material objects from other time domains (with their axis of time in a
an angle) the obverer would percieve as radiation (or not at all).

(This 'ghost-like' behaviour of matter from other worlds makes this
concept a little difficult to accept.)


TH

[Maciej Wozniak]

W dniu 12.03.2024 o 09:30, Thomas Heger pisze:
> Am 10.03.2024 um 11:35 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the same
>>>>> 'time-domain' (uses Earth time).
>>>>
>>>> What is the range of Earth time, then?
>>>
>>> If timer is local (opposite to 'universal'), than Earth time is valid
>>> on Earth or nearby.
>>
>> So - for every observation made from Earth or nearby?
>
> No: time is local everywhere.

And an observation made from Earth is made from Earth.

>>>> What kind of object does use time?
>>>
>>> I regard matter as 'timelike stable patterns'.
>>
>> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
>>
>
>
> 'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects have to
> fullfil.

> Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain 'axis of
> time')

So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
How does it use it?
And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
time - times, or are they something else?

[Thomas Heger]

Am 12.03.2024 um 13:01 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> W dniu 12.03.2024 o 09:30, Thomas Heger pisze:
>> Am 10.03.2024 um 11:35 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GPS is pyhsically connected to the Earth, hence 'lives' in the same
>>>>>> 'time-domain' (uses Earth time).
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the range of Earth time, then?
>>>>
>>>> If timer is local (opposite to 'universal'), than Earth time is valid
>>>> on Earth or nearby.
>>>
>>> So - for every observation made from Earth or nearby?
>>
>> No: time is local everywhere.
>
> And an observation made from Earth is made from Earth.
>
>>>>> What kind of object does use time?
>>>>
>>>> I regard matter as 'timelike stable patterns'.
>>>
>>> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
>>>
>>
>>
>> 'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects have to
>> fullfil.
>
>> Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain 'axis of time')
>
> So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
> How does it use it?
> And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
> time - times, or are they something else?
>

I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' (of/in
spacetime).

Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of atoms.

A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would alllow a
certain relatively simple mechanism to explain a variety of different
things.

My main aim was to connect GR and QM.

To do so, I had started at the GR side and tried to make particles out
of spacetime.

The phenomenon 'time' is then emerging from spacetime, if a certain
'cut' is applied and matter is created, which 'wants' time to exist (to
be able to be timelike stable).

So: matter pops out of nowhere and into existence, while the inverse to
matter is empty space (vacuum), which is created together with matter
and time.

This is a rather strange concept, I have to admit, but seemingly the way
how nature functions.

As 'proof of concept' I had 'growing Earth' (which is IMHO correct).

To unbderstand this concept, you could read my 'book', which is about
this idea:

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


The key point is this:

an object is called a system.

Systems have boarders and borders are assumed to be arbitrary and of
equal rights, while some make more sense than others.

This is more or less the opposite to the particle concept of QM, which
regards matter (particles) as basic foundation of everything.


TH

[Maciej Wozniak]

W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:

>>>> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects have to
>>> fullfil.
>>
>>> Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain 'axis of
>>> time')
>>
>> So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
>> How does it use it?
>> And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
>> time - times, or are they something else?
>>
>
> I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' (of/in
> spacetime).
>
> Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of atoms.
>
> A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would alllow a


Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
Who or what is using "time" concept here?

So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
are they something else?

[Thomas Heger]

Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
>
>>>>> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects have to
>>>> fullfil.
>>>
>>>> Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain 'axis of
>>>> time')
>>>
>>> So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
>>> How does it use it?
>>> And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
>>> time - times, or are they something else?
>>>
>>
>> I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' (of/in
>> spacetime).
>>
>> Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of atoms.
>>
>> A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would alllow a
>
>
> Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
> Who or what is using "time" concept here?
??

Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.

Modells are necessarily simpler than the real thing, because otherwise
they are simply unusable.


> So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
> are they something else?

Time zones are something else.

a 'time domaine' is a set of places, where the same clocks can be used
and permanently show the same time, once they are synchronized properly.

This is the case for all clocks around the Earth at the same hight above
mean sea level.

Time zones are just for convinience, to allow same time of sunrise.

But that makes clocks show different times and disallows synchronization.

TH

TH

[Maciej Wozniak]

W dniu 17.03.2024 o 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
> Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>> W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>
>>>>>> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects have to
>>>>> fullfil.
>>>>
>>>>> Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain 'axis of
>>>>> time')
>>>>
>>>> So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
>>>> How does it use it?
>>>> And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' (of/in
>>> spacetime).
>>>
>>> Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of atoms.
>>>
>>> A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would alllow a
>>
>>
>> Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
>> Who or what is using "time" concept  here?
> ??
>
> Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.

So, who, or what, can use time to model?

>> So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
>> are they something else?
>
> Time zones are something else.

Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
Are they times or are they something else?

[The Starmaker]

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
> > Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >> W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
> >>
> >>>>>> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
> >>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects have to
> >>>>> fullfil.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain 'axis of
> >>>>> time')
> >>>>
> >>>> So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
> >>>> How does it use it?
> >>>> And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
> >>>> time - times, or are they something else?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' (of/in
> >>> spacetime).
> >>>
> >>> Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of atoms.
> >>>
> >>> A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would alllow a
> >>
> >>
> >> Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
> >> Who or what is using "time" concept here?
> > ??
> >
> > Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
>
> So, who, or what, can use time to model?
>
> >> So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
> >> are they something else?
> >
> > Time zones are something else.
>
> Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
> Are they times or are they something else?


Time zones are just...shadows.

The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.

Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?


The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my shadows!"

The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"

The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"


The Sun sez, "IT'S JUST A FUCKING SHADOW!!!!"


The Moon ask the Sun, "What time do you have?"



"Half past a cows ass, a quarter to my balls!"
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[Maciej Wozniak]

W dniu 17.03.2024 o 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>> Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>> W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
>>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects have to
>>>>>>> fullfil.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain 'axis of
>>>>>>> time')
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
>>>>>> How does it use it?
>>>>>> And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
>>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' (of/in
>>>>> spacetime).
>>>>>
>>>>> Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of atoms.
>>>>>
>>>>> A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would alllow a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
>>>> Who or what is using "time" concept here?
>>> ??
>>>
>>> Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
>>
>> So, who, or what, can use time to model?
>>
>>>> So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
>>>> are they something else?
>>>
>>> Time zones are something else.
>>
>> Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
>> Are they times or are they something else?
>
>
> Time zones are just...shadows.

Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
times?


> The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
>
> Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
>
>
> The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my shadows!"
>
> The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
>
> The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"

The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.

[The Starmaker]

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>
> >> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
> >>> Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>> W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
> >>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects have to
> >>>>>>> fullfil.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain 'axis of
> >>>>>>> time')
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
> >>>>>> How does it use it?
> >>>>>> And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
> >>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns' (of/in
> >>>>> spacetime).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of atoms.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would alllow a
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
> >>>> Who or what is using "time" concept here?
> >>> ??
> >>>
> >>> Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
> >>
> >> So, who, or what, can use time to model?
> >>
> >>>> So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
> >>>> are they something else?
> >>>
> >>> Time zones are something else.
> >>
> >> Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
> >> Are they times or are they something else?
> >
> >
> > Time zones are just...shadows.
>
> Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
> Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
> times?
>
> > The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
> >
> > Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
> >
> >
> > The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my shadows!"
> >
> > The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
> >
> > The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
>
> The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.

The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.

Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.


If you put a sundial in one time zone...


it's shadows all the way down.




wait a minute, i'm hearing something...who dat say who dat when i say
who dat??



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

[Thomas Heger]

Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>
>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>>>>> Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>>>> W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
>>>>>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects
>>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>>> fullfil.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain
>>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
>>>>>>>>>> time')
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
>>>>>>>>> How does it use it?
>>>>>>>>> And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
>>>>>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns'
>>>>>>>> (of/in
>>>>>>>> spacetime).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of
>>>>>>>> atoms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would
>>>>>>>> alllow a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
>>>>>>> Who or what is using "time" concept here?
>>>>>> ??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, who, or what, can use time to model?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
>>>>>>> are they something else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Time zones are something else.
>>>>>
>>>>> Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
>>>>> Are they times or are they something else?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Time zones are just...shadows.
>>>
>>> Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
>>> Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
>>> times?
>>>
>>>> The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
>>>>
>>>> Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my
>>>> shadows!"
>>>>
>>>> The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
>>>>
>>>> The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
>>>
>>> The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
>>
>> The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
>>
>> Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
>>
>>
>> If you put a sundial in one time zone...
>>
>>
>> it's shadows all the way down.
>
> And - are zone times times or are they
> something else?
>

All time measures are intervals.

You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between
that event and some other event.

This measure is often called 'time'.

Time includes also dates. Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is
a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.

To the days we add hours, minutes and seconds (and occasionally
fractions of seconds) and call that 'time'.

But this time has nothing to do with sun-dials, because Christ was not
born 24 times on a single day.


TH

[Maciej Wozniak]

W dniu 18.03.2024 o 07:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
> Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>> W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>>>>>> Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>>>>> W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
>>>>>>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects
>>>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>>>> fullfil.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain
>>>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
>>>>>>>>>>> time')
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
>>>>>>>>>> How does it use it?
>>>>>>>>>> And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
>>>>>>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns'
>>>>>>>>> (of/in
>>>>>>>>> spacetime).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of
>>>>>>>>> atoms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would
>>>>>>>>> alllow a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
>>>>>>>> Who or what is using "time" concept  here?
>>>>>>> ??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, who, or what, can use time to model?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
>>>>>>>> are they something else?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Time zones are something else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
>>>>>> Are they times or are they something else?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Time zones are just...shadows.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
>>>> Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
>>>> times?
>>>>
>>>>> The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my
>>>>> shadows!"
>>>>>
>>>>> The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
>>>>>
>>>>> The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
>>>>
>>>> The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
>>>
>>> The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
>>>
>>> Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you put a sundial in one time zone...
>>>
>>>
>>> it's shadows all the way down.
>>
>> And - are zone times times or are they
>> something else?
>>
>
> All time measures are intervals.
>
> You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between
> that event and some other event.


All the peobple involved in physics have
some mania of "measure", allegedly ruling
the universe. Nope. Time, clocks and calendars
are not toy gadgets to your cheerful 'let's
explain" game, they have more important things
to do. A shocking concepts, isn't it?


>
> This measure is often called 'time'.
>
> Time includes also dates.

Time IS a system of assigning dates/hours.
Measuring intervals is its less important,
secondary functionality. It's not optmized
for that and it doesn't have to be optimized
for that.


Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is
> a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.

No. It's 18th march 2024. Most people are unable
to calculate the interval between 2024-03-18
and 0001-01-01 correctly. And they don't need
it at all.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 18.03.2024 um 07:54 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
...
>
>>
>> This measure is often called 'time'.
>>
>> Time includes also dates.
>
> Time IS a system of assigning dates/hours.
> Measuring intervals is its less important,
> secondary functionality. It's not optmized
> for that and it doesn't have to be optimized
> for that.

NO!!!

You have to distiguish between time (which is the physical phenomenon
you like to measure) and the measurement of that quantity.


Time belongs to nature and exists there for uncertain reasons.

The measurement of time utilises clocks of various kinds, which do NOT
belong to nature (because they are artifacts).

So: natur does not know anything about hours and seconds and uses other
other means than clocks.

>
> Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is
>> a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
>
> No. It's 18th march 2024. Most people are unable
> to calculate the interval between 2024-03-18
> and 0001-01-01 correctly. And they don't need
> it at all.

Sure, most people cannot do that without a calculator. But if you need
that number, you find various calculators, which can answer that
question in less than a second.

TH

[Maciej Wozniak]

W dniu 20.03.2024 o 08:29, Thomas Heger pisze:
> Am 18.03.2024 um 07:54 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> ...
>>
>>>
>>> This measure is often called 'time'.
>>>
>>> Time includes also dates.
>>
>> Time IS a system of assigning dates/hours.
>> Measuring intervals is its less important,
>> secondary functionality. It's not optmized
>> for that and it doesn't have to be optimized
>> for that.
>
> NO!!!
>
> You have to distiguish between time (which is the physical phenomenon
> you like to measure)

It is not. Your delusions are just delusions,
time of the reality is what it is, screaming
"NO!!!!" won't help.

>
> Time belongs to nature and exists there for uncertain reasons.

Delusions. What we're calling "time" is an entity
like uTIMEc, TIMEai, zone TIMEs. They have
nothing in common with nature.
What YOU're calling time - well, you can't even
tell us what it is. That's all a sane person needs
to know about it.



>> No. It's 18th march 2024. Most people are unable
>> to calculate the interval between 2024-03-18
>> and 0001-01-01 correctly. And they don't need
>> it at all.
>
> Sure, most people cannot do that without a calculatorBut if you need
> that number, you find various calculators, which can  answer that
> question in less than a second.


And the answer will be, most likely, wrong. Just checked
with postgres database. It doesn't know that the first date
is gregorian and the other is julian - and it doesn't know
the difference. I bet you don't know the difference too.
Welcome to the real world?

[Elijah Katzuba Bakiev]

Python wrote:

> Le 20/03/2024 à 15:22, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>
>> And the answer will be, most likely,  wrong. Just checked with postgres
>> database. It doesn't know that the first date is gregorian and the
>> other is julian - and it doesn't know the difference. I bet you don't
>> know the difference too. Welcome to the real world?
>
> $ cal 9 1752 September 1752 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 14 15
> 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datetime-units-history.html
> (for those interested by the subject btw, there is no point to reply to
> asinine Wozniak's post)

yes sure

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱_𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗮𝘆_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀_–_𝗲𝘅-𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿
A former Kiev official floated the idea in response to Washington’s “loan”
proposal
https://r%74.com/russia/594578-ukraine-repay-west-loan/

That's what this whole war was about to begin with. Carve up Russia and
give it to the Jewish oligarchs. That simple.

[Zozrov Bakinov Mikhalev]

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> W dniu 23.03.2024 o 08:08, Thomas Heger pisze:
>> Well, yes, but that is not very important (whether or not the calander
>> is historical correct).
>
> It's not very important that it is incorrect, because nobody really
> cares for intervals.
>
>> Let's simply assume, that the birth of Christ was the event, from where
>> all calenders today start.
>
> Why not? Why to bother about any reality when we're about building some
> magnificient explainations and formulas?

you misundrestand formulas. A formula is an logic macro scale explanation
in short for, As for instance, instead of reading for you 10 pages, it's
done shortly in few lines. Ie like, expect fume in your country of
residence. It's coming. It appears a lot of fume, is about to be released.

𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄,_𝗖𝗿𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀_𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗛𝗮𝗹𝗹;_11_𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱,_4_𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀_𝗰𝗮𝗽𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗱.
𝗠𝗲𝗱𝘃𝗲𝗱𝗲𝘃,_𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀_𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗯𝗲_𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆..
https://www.bi%74%63%68%75te.com/video/WY65JFB-oRA/

[The Starmaker]

Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> > W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>
> >>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
> >>>>>> Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>>>>> W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
> >>>>>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects
> >>>>>>>>>> have to
> >>>>>>>>>> fullfil.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain
> >>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
> >>>>>>>>>> time')
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
> >>>>>>>>> How does it use it?
> >>>>>>>>> And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
> >>>>>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns'
> >>>>>>>> (of/in
> >>>>>>>> spacetime).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of
> >>>>>>>> atoms.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would
> >>>>>>>> alllow a
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
> >>>>>>> Who or what is using "time" concept here?
> >>>>>> ??
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, who, or what, can use time to model?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
> >>>>>>> are they something else?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Time zones are something else.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
> >>>>> Are they times or are they something else?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Time zones are just...shadows.
> >>>
> >>> Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
> >>> Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
> >>> times?
> >>>
> >>>> The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my
> >>>> shadows!"
> >>>>
> >>>> The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
> >>>>
> >>>> The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
> >>>
> >>> The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
> >>
> >> The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
> >>
> >> Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
> >>
> >>
> >> If you put a sundial in one time zone...
> >>
> >>
> >> it's shadows all the way down.
> >
> > And - are zone times times or are they
> > something else?
> >
>
> All time measures are intervals.
>
> You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between
> that event and some other event.
>
> This measure is often called 'time'.
>
> Time includes also dates. Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is
> a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
>
> To the days we add hours, minutes and seconds (and occasionally
> fractions of seconds) and call that 'time'.
>
> But this time has nothing to do with sun-dials, because Christ was not
> born 24 times on a single day.
>
> TH

No, you set a certain reference point in the Shadow, and
measure the movement of the shadow.

This measure you often called 'time'.

But, it's just the sun's shadow...there is no time. It's always Now,
shadow or no shadow.

The sun is just going around and around and asks, "What are you guys
doing, it's just a shadow?!"


"Pay no mind to us Sun, we are just trying to synchronize out sundials."




--
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]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> > Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> > > W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
> > >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
> > >>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
> > >>>>>> Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> > >>>>>>> W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
> > >>>>>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> 'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects
> > >>>>>>>>>> have to
> > >>>>>>>>>> fullfil.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain
> > >>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
> > >>>>>>>>>> time')
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
> > >>>>>>>>> How does it use it?
> > >>>>>>>>> And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
> > >>>>>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns'
> > >>>>>>>> (of/in
> > >>>>>>>> spacetime).
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of
> > >>>>>>>> atoms.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would
> > >>>>>>>> alllow a
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
> > >>>>>>> Who or what is using "time" concept here?
> > >>>>>> ??
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So, who, or what, can use time to model?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
> > >>>>>>> are they something else?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Time zones are something else.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
> > >>>>> Are they times or are they something else?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Time zones are just...shadows.
> > >>>
> > >>> Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
> > >>> Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
> > >>> times?
> > >>>
> > >>>> The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my
> > >>>> shadows!"
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
> > >>>
> > >>> The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
> > >>
> > >> The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
> > >>
> > >> Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> If you put a sundial in one time zone...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> it's shadows all the way down.
> > >
> > > And - are zone times times or are they
> > > something else?
> > >
> >
> > All time measures are intervals.
> >
> > You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between
> > that event and some other event.
> >
> > This measure is often called 'time'.
> >
> > Time includes also dates. Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is
> > a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
> >
> > To the days we add hours, minutes and seconds (and occasionally
> > fractions of seconds) and call that 'time'.
> >
> > But this time has nothing to do with sun-dials, because Christ was not
> > born 24 times on a single day.
> >
> > TH
>
> No, you set a certain reference point in the Shadow, and
> measure the movement of the shadow.
>
> This measure you often called 'time'.
>
> But, it's just the sun's shadow...there is no time. It's always Now,
> shadow or no shadow.
>
> The sun is just going around and around and asks, "What are you guys
> doing, it's just a shadow?!"
>
> "Pay no mind to us Sun, we are just trying to synchronize out sundials."
>


In other words, the big hand on the clock is in fact...a mechanical
shadow.


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

[Maciej Wozniak]

W dniu 19.03.2024 o 09:01, The Starmaker pisze:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>> W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>>>>>>>> Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>>>>>>> W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fullfil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time')
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
>>>>>>>>>>>> How does it use it?
>>>>>>>>>>>> And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
>>>>>>>>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns'
>>>>>>>>>>> (of/in
>>>>>>>>>>> spacetime).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of
>>>>>>>>>>> atoms.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would
>>>>>>>>>>> alllow a
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
>>>>>>>>>> Who or what is using "time" concept here?
>>>>>>>>> ??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, who, or what, can use time to model?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
>>>>>>>>>> are they something else?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Time zones are something else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
>>>>>>>> Are they times or are they something else?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Time zones are just...shadows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
>>>>>> Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
>>>>>> times?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my
>>>>>>> shadows!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
>>>>>
>>>>> The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
>>>>>
>>>>> Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you put a sundial in one time zone...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> it's shadows all the way down.
>>>>
>>>> And - are zone times times or are they
>>>> something else?
>>>>
>>>
>>> All time measures are intervals.
>>>
>>> You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between
>>> that event and some other event.
>>>
>>> This measure is often called 'time'.
>>>
>>> Time includes also dates. Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is
>>> a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
>>>
>>> To the days we add hours, minutes and seconds (and occasionally
>>> fractions of seconds) and call that 'time'.
>>>
>>> But this time has nothing to do with sun-dials, because Christ was not
>>> born 24 times on a single day.
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> No, you set a certain reference point in the Shadow, and
>> measure the movement of the shadow.
>>
>> This measure you often called 'time'.
>>
>> But, it's just the sun's shadow...there is no time. It's always Now,
>> shadow or no shadow.
>>
>> The sun is just going around and around and asks, "What are you guys
>> doing, it's just a shadow?!"
>>
>> "Pay no mind to us Sun, we are just trying to synchronize out sundials."
>>
>
>
> In other words, the big hand on the clock is in fact...a mechanical
> shadow.

And?
Are zone times times or are they
something else?

[The Starmaker]

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> W dniu 19.03.2024 o 09:01, The Starmaker pisze:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>> W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
> >>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
> >>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
> >>>>>>>>> Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>>>>>>>> W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fullfil.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> time')
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How does it use it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
> >>>>>>>>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns'
> >>>>>>>>>>> (of/in
> >>>>>>>>>>> spacetime).
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of
> >>>>>>>>>>> atoms.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would
> >>>>>>>>>>> alllow a
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
> >>>>>>>>>> Who or what is using "time" concept here?
> >>>>>>>>> ??
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So, who, or what, can use time to model?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
> >>>>>>>>>> are they something else?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Time zones are something else.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
> >>>>>>>> Are they times or are they something else?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Time zones are just...shadows.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
> >>>>>> Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
> >>>>>> times?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my
> >>>>>>> shadows!"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you put a sundial in one time zone...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it's shadows all the way down.
> >>>>
> >>>> And - are zone times times or are they
> >>>> something else?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> All time measures are intervals.
> >>>
> >>> You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between
> >>> that event and some other event.
> >>>
> >>> This measure is often called 'time'.
> >>>
> >>> Time includes also dates. Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is
> >>> a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
> >>>
> >>> To the days we add hours, minutes and seconds (and occasionally
> >>> fractions of seconds) and call that 'time'.
> >>>
> >>> But this time has nothing to do with sun-dials, because Christ was not
> >>> born 24 times on a single day.
> >>>
> >>> TH
> >>
> >> No, you set a certain reference point in the Shadow, and
> >> measure the movement of the shadow.
> >>
> >> This measure you often called 'time'.
> >>
> >> But, it's just the sun's shadow...there is no time. It's always Now,
> >> shadow or no shadow.
> >>
> >> The sun is just going around and around and asks, "What are you guys
> >> doing, it's just a shadow?!"
> >>
> >> "Pay no mind to us Sun, we are just trying to synchronize out sundials."
> >>
> >
> >
> > In other words, the big hand on the clock is in fact...a mechanical
> > shadow.
>
> And?
> Are zone times times or are they
> something else?



12X

X = times

12 times.

How many times are you going to ask dis question????








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

[Maciej Wozniak]

W dniu 19.03.2024 o 19:58, The Starmaker pisze:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 19.03.2024 o 09:01, The Starmaker pisze:
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>>> W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fullfil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time')
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How does it use it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns'
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (of/in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> spacetime).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> atoms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> alllow a
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Who or what is using "time" concept here?
>>>>>>>>>>> ??
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, who, or what, can use time to model?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
>>>>>>>>>>>> are they something else?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Time zones are something else.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
>>>>>>>>>> Are they times or are they something else?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Time zones are just...shadows.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
>>>>>>>> Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
>>>>>>>> times?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my
>>>>>>>>> shadows!"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you put a sundial in one time zone...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it's shadows all the way down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And - are zone times times or are they
>>>>>> something else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All time measures are intervals.
>>>>>
>>>>> You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between
>>>>> that event and some other event.
>>>>>
>>>>> This measure is often called 'time'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Time includes also dates. Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is
>>>>> a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
>>>>>
>>>>> To the days we add hours, minutes and seconds (and occasionally
>>>>> fractions of seconds) and call that 'time'.
>>>>>
>>>>> But this time has nothing to do with sun-dials, because Christ was not
>>>>> born 24 times on a single day.
>>>>>
>>>>> TH
>>>>
>>>> No, you set a certain reference point in the Shadow, and
>>>> measure the movement of the shadow.
>>>>
>>>> This measure you often called 'time'.
>>>>
>>>> But, it's just the sun's shadow...there is no time. It's always Now,
>>>> shadow or no shadow.
>>>>
>>>> The sun is just going around and around and asks, "What are you guys
>>>> doing, it's just a shadow?!"
>>>>
>>>> "Pay no mind to us Sun, we are just trying to synchronize out sundials."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, the big hand on the clock is in fact...a mechanical
>>> shadow.
>>
>> And?
>> Are zone times times or are they
>> something else?
>
>
>
> 12X
>
> X = times
>
> 12 times.
>
> How many times are you going to ask dis question????

0x
x - times
0 times.
How many times are you going to answer dis question?

[The Starmaker]

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> W dniu 19.03.2024 o 09:01, The Starmaker pisze:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>> W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
> >>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
> >>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
> >>>>>>>>> Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>>>>>>>> W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fullfil.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> time')
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How does it use it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
> >>>>>>>>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns'
> >>>>>>>>>>> (of/in
> >>>>>>>>>>> spacetime).
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of
> >>>>>>>>>>> atoms.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would
> >>>>>>>>>>> alllow a
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
> >>>>>>>>>> Who or what is using "time" concept here?
> >>>>>>>>> ??
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So, who, or what, can use time to model?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
> >>>>>>>>>> are they something else?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Time zones are something else.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
> >>>>>>>> Are they times or are they something else?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Time zones are just...shadows.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
> >>>>>> Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
> >>>>>> times?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my
> >>>>>>> shadows!"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you put a sundial in one time zone...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it's shadows all the way down.
> >>>>
> >>>> And - are zone times times or are they
> >>>> something else?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> All time measures are intervals.
> >>>
> >>> You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between
> >>> that event and some other event.
> >>>
> >>> This measure is often called 'time'.
> >>>
> >>> Time includes also dates. Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is
> >>> a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
> >>>
> >>> To the days we add hours, minutes and seconds (and occasionally
> >>> fractions of seconds) and call that 'time'.
> >>>
> >>> But this time has nothing to do with sun-dials, because Christ was not
> >>> born 24 times on a single day.
> >>>
> >>> TH
> >>
> >> No, you set a certain reference point in the Shadow, and
> >> measure the movement of the shadow.
> >>
> >> This measure you often called 'time'.
> >>
> >> But, it's just the sun's shadow...there is no time. It's always Now,
> >> shadow or no shadow.
> >>
> >> The sun is just going around and around and asks, "What are you guys
> >> doing, it's just a shadow?!"
> >>
> >> "Pay no mind to us Sun, we are just trying to synchronize out sundials."
> >>
> >
> >
> > In other words, the big hand on the clock is in fact...a mechanical
> > shadow.
>
> And?
> Are zone times times or are they
> something else?


zone times are not times...it is just the Sun's 'shadow' moving across
the face of the earth.

there are no seconds
there are no minutes
there are no hours
there are no days, months or years...
there are no times or zones times..

it's just the Sun's 'shadow' moving across the face of the earth.


The universe in not mathematical.
Math exist only in the mind.

What time is it, I gotta go, I'm late...





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

[Maciej Wozniak]

W dniu 19.03.2024 o 20:09, The Starmaker pisze:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 19.03.2024 o 09:01, The Starmaker pisze:
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>>> W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fullfil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time')
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How does it use it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns'
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (of/in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> spacetime).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> atoms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> alllow a
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Who or what is using "time" concept here?
>>>>>>>>>>> ??
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, who, or what, can use time to model?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
>>>>>>>>>>>> are they something else?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Time zones are something else.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
>>>>>>>>>> Are they times or are they something else?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Time zones are just...shadows.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
>>>>>>>> Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
>>>>>>>> times?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my
>>>>>>>>> shadows!"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you put a sundial in one time zone...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it's shadows all the way down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And - are zone times times or are they
>>>>>> something else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All time measures are intervals.
>>>>>
>>>>> You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between
>>>>> that event and some other event.
>>>>>
>>>>> This measure is often called 'time'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Time includes also dates. Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is
>>>>> a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
>>>>>
>>>>> To the days we add hours, minutes and seconds (and occasionally
>>>>> fractions of seconds) and call that 'time'.
>>>>>
>>>>> But this time has nothing to do with sun-dials, because Christ was not
>>>>> born 24 times on a single day.
>>>>>
>>>>> TH
>>>>
>>>> No, you set a certain reference point in the Shadow, and
>>>> measure the movement of the shadow.
>>>>
>>>> This measure you often called 'time'.
>>>>
>>>> But, it's just the sun's shadow...there is no time. It's always Now,
>>>> shadow or no shadow.
>>>>
>>>> The sun is just going around and around and asks, "What are you guys
>>>> doing, it's just a shadow?!"
>>>>
>>>> "Pay no mind to us Sun, we are just trying to synchronize out sundials."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, the big hand on the clock is in fact...a mechanical
>>> shadow.
>>
>> And?
>> Are zone times times or are they
>> something else?
>
>
> zone times are not times...it is just the Sun's 'shadow' moving across
> the face of the earth.

Finally. An answer.
Who has told you that time can't be just Sun's
shadow moving across the face of the earth?

[The Starmaker]

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> W dniu 19.03.2024 o 20:09, The Starmaker pisze:
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>
> >> W dniu 19.03.2024 o 09:01, The Starmaker pisze:
> >>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>>>> W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
> >>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
> >>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fullfil.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time')
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How does it use it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (of/in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> spacetime).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> atoms.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> alllow a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Who or what is using "time" concept here?
> >>>>>>>>>>> ??
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So, who, or what, can use time to model?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
> >>>>>>>>>>>> are they something else?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Time zones are something else.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
> >>>>>>>>>> Are they times or are they something else?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Time zones are just...shadows.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
> >>>>>>>> Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
> >>>>>>>> times?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my
> >>>>>>>>> shadows!"
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If you put a sundial in one time zone...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> it's shadows all the way down.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And - are zone times times or are they
> >>>>>> something else?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All time measures are intervals.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between
> >>>>> that event and some other event.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This measure is often called 'time'.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Time includes also dates. Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is
> >>>>> a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To the days we add hours, minutes and seconds (and occasionally
> >>>>> fractions of seconds) and call that 'time'.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But this time has nothing to do with sun-dials, because Christ was not
> >>>>> born 24 times on a single day.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> TH
> >>>>
> >>>> No, you set a certain reference point in the Shadow, and
> >>>> measure the movement of the shadow.
> >>>>
> >>>> This measure you often called 'time'.
> >>>>
> >>>> But, it's just the sun's shadow...there is no time. It's always Now,
> >>>> shadow or no shadow.
> >>>>
> >>>> The sun is just going around and around and asks, "What are you guys
> >>>> doing, it's just a shadow?!"
> >>>>
> >>>> "Pay no mind to us Sun, we are just trying to synchronize out sundials."
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In other words, the big hand on the clock is in fact...a mechanical
> >>> shadow.
> >>
> >> And?
> >> Are zone times times or are they
> >> something else?
> >
> >
> > zone times are not times...it is just the Sun's 'shadow' moving across
> > the face of the earth.
>
> Finally. An answer.
> Who has told you that time can't be just Sun's
> shadow moving across the face of the earth?

There are no intervals, no points...the shadow is continious.

The Sun does not go tic, then tok. no intervals, no points...the shadow
is continious.

There is no time.



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

[Maciej Wozniak]

W dniu 20.03.2024 o 07:22, The Starmaker pisze:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 19.03.2024 o 20:09, The Starmaker pisze:
>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> W dniu 19.03.2024 o 09:01, The Starmaker pisze:
>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 18.03.2024 um 06:59 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>>>>> W dniu 18.03.2024 o 00:10, The Starmaker pisze:
>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 21:03, The Starmaker pisze:
>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu 17.03.2024 o 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 14.03.2024 um 09:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu 14.03.2024 o 08:24, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't give a damn to it. So, what kind of objects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does use time? Does a rock do? What for?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'timelike stable' is a requirement, which all material objects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fullfil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since 'timelike stable' requires time (actually a certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'axis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time')
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, a rock is using time to be "timelike stable".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How does it use it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what is this "time" of yours? Are UTC, TAI, a zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time - times, or are they something else?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I regard matter (e.g. particles) as 'timelike stable patterns'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (of/in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spacetime).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rock is more a crystal than a particle, what is an ensamble of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atoms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alllow a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modelled by a rock, or modelled by us?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who or what is using "time" concept here?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Natur is not a modell, but the thing, which we like to modell.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, who, or what, can use time to model?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, are UTC, TAI, zone times - times? Or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are they something else?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time zones are something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Time zones surely are. How about zone times?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are they times or are they something else?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Time zones are just...shadows.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nobody is asking about time zones, or about shadows.
>>>>>>>>>> Once again: zone times - are they ar aren't they
>>>>>>>>>> times?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The numbers of 't' are just values earthlings put on a shadow.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is it the Sun's fault earthlings put 'numbers' on shadows?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Sun sez, "Hey, look a dat, they are now putting numbers on my
>>>>>>>>>>> shadows!"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Sun sez, "It's just a shadow!!!!"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Moon sez, "Hey Sun, look at me.. I'm a quarter!!"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Sun says, the Moon says and an idiot hear voices.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The U.S. is divided into 11 separate time zones.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Each time zone is measured by it's shadow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you put a sundial in one time zone...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it's shadows all the way down.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And - are zone times times or are they
>>>>>>>> something else?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All time measures are intervals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You set a certain reference point in time and measure the delay between
>>>>>>> that event and some other event.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This measure is often called 'time'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Time includes also dates. Like today is the 18th of march 2024. This is
>>>>>>> a certain number of days past an event called 'birth of Christ'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To the days we add hours, minutes and seconds (and occasionally
>>>>>>> fractions of seconds) and call that 'time'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But this time has nothing to do with sun-dials, because Christ was not
>>>>>>> born 24 times on a single day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you set a certain reference point in the Shadow, and
>>>>>> measure the movement of the shadow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This measure you often called 'time'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, it's just the sun's shadow...there is no time. It's always Now,
>>>>>> shadow or no shadow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The sun is just going around and around and asks, "What are you guys
>>>>>> doing, it's just a shadow?!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Pay no mind to us Sun, we are just trying to synchronize out sundials."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, the big hand on the clock is in fact...a mechanical
>>>>> shadow.
>>>>
>>>> And?
>>>> Are zone times times or are they
>>>> something else?
>>>
>>>
>>> zone times are not times...it is just the Sun's 'shadow' moving across
>>> the face of the earth.
>>
>> Finally. An answer.
>> Who has told you that time can't be just Sun's
>> shadow moving across the face of the earth?
>
> There are no intervals, no points...the shadow is continious.
>
> The Sun does not go tic, then tok. no intervals, no points...the shadow
> is continious.
>
> There is no time.

But there are zone times. And UTC, and TAI...
You've spent too much with physicists and their
moronic delusions, of course - time, as they
imagined and described it - doesn't exist.

[Osiris Moy]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> A particle is modelled as 'timelike stable' because this would alllow a
> certain relatively simple mechanism to explain a variety of different
> things.

🌄🎕🎇🐅🌅···
···

[Physfitfreak]

On 3/6/2024 1:44 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> No more time.


Did you get kicked out of eternal september?

You'd better go back there if you can, cause paganini is revealing your
posting account regardless of what nickname you use. You're blowing your
cover.

Poor choice. I thought you were smarter than that.



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

[The Starmaker]

Physfitfreak wrote:
>
> On 3/6/2024 1:44 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > No more time.
>
> Did you get kicked out of eternal september?
>
> You'd better go back there if you can, cause paganini is revealing your
> posting account regardless of what nickname you use. You're blowing your
> cover.
>
> Poor choice. I thought you were smarter than that.
>


I don't have a cover. I'm not anonymous . I don't hide my IP or anything
of that nature.






--
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]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Physfitfreak wrote:
> >
> > On 3/6/2024 1:44 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > No more time.
> >
> > Did you get kicked out of eternal september?
> >
> > You'd better go back there if you can, cause paganini is revealing your
> > posting account regardless of what nickname you use. You're blowing your
> > cover.
> >
> > Poor choice. I thought you were smarter than that.
> >
>
> I don't have a cover. I'm not anonymous . I don't hide my IP or anything
> of that nature.
>



Here is another newsserver



--
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]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Physfitfreak wrote:
> > >
> > > On 3/6/2024 1:44 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > No more time.
> > >
> > > Did you get kicked out of eternal september?
> > >
> > > You'd better go back there if you can, cause paganini is revealing your
> > > posting account regardless of what nickname you use. You're blowing your
> > > cover.
> > >
> > > Poor choice. I thought you were smarter than that.
> > >
> >
> > I don't have a cover. I'm not anonymous . I don't hide my IP or anything
> > of that nature.
> >
>
> Here is another newsserver


Here is another newsserver

--
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]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Physfitfreak wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 3/6/2024 1:44 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > No more time.
> > > >
> > > > Did you get kicked out of eternal september?
> > > >
> > > > You'd better go back there if you can, cause paganini is revealing your
> > > > posting account regardless of what nickname you use. You're blowing your
> > > > cover.
> > > >
> > > > Poor choice. I thought you were smarter than that.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't have a cover. I'm not anonymous . I don't hide my IP or anything
> > > of that nature.
> > >
> >
> > Here is another newsserver
>
> Here is another newsserver

Here is another newsserver..


I don't have a cover. I'm not anonymous . I don't hide my IP or anything
of that nature.


and i don't change my handle to pretend to be someone else.







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

[Physfitfreak]

On 3/6/2024 3:09 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/6/2024 1:44 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>> No more time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you get kicked out of eternal september?
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd better go back there if you can, cause paganini is revealing your
>>>>> posting account regardless of what nickname you use. You're blowing your
>>>>> cover.
>>>>>
>>>>> Poor choice. I thought you were smarter than that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a cover. I'm not anonymous . I don't hide my IP or anything
>>>> of that nature.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here is another newsserver
>>
>> Here is another newsserver
>
> Here is another newsserver..
>
>
> I don't have a cover. I'm not anonymous . I don't hide my IP or anything
> of that nature.
>
>
> and i don't change my handle to pretend to be someone else.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Not my business anyway. But don't curse at me again from your paganini
account. It'll come to haunt you.



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

[Maciej Woźniak]

W dniu 06.03.2024 o 08:17, The Starmaker pisze:
> =?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?

The one matching TAI.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 05.03.2024 21:26, skrev Thomas Heger:
>
> A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
>

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

How would you measure "time"?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Maciej Wozniak]

W dniu 06.03.2024 o 19:42, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
> Den 05.03.2024 21:26, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>
>> A clock is an artifact (and does not show time).
>>
>
> In _physics_ "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.

And the _physics_ "time" has no meaning, poor halfbrain.

[Ross Finlayson]

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.

[Physfitfreak]

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

[Vinson Makricosta Stamatelos]

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

[Physfitfreak]

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

[bertitaylor]

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.

They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started talking about entropy.
Radiation is essentially force.
With distance it becomes nearly zero from its source.
Creating the overall background radiation.


> 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]

Am 21.03.2024 um 14:05 schrieb bertitaylor:

>>>> 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.
>
> They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started
> talking about entropy.

Heat transfer is possible in three different ways:

transport of heated media (convection)
dissipation of heat within some sort of stuff (conduction)
radiation

Therefore it is not true, that thermal energy is always transported by
radiation.



> Radiation is essentially force.

Well, but no.

Actually you (apparently) mean 'fields' with 'essential'.

To call a field 'force' is totally wrong.

The term 'force' stems from the measurement of a field. But fields exist
without measurement.

So, if I decode your statement properly, you like to say, that heat
transfer by radiation utilises the em-field.

That would be actually correct.

> With distance it becomes nearly zero from its source.
> Creating the overall background radiation.

Now you want to explain CMBR?

I personally think, that CMBR has nothing to do with the big-bang, but
is caused by the gravitational field of the Earth.
...


TH

[bertitaylor]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 21.03.2024 um 14:05 schrieb bertitaylor:

>>>>> 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.
>>
>> They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started
>> talking about entropy.

> Heat transfer is possible in three different ways:

> transport of heated media (convection)
> dissipation of heat within some sort of stuff (conduction)
> radiation

> Therefore it is not true, that thermal energy is always transported by
> radiation.

I did not say that. What did I say? ">> They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started
>> talking about entropy." Heat engines, laws of thermodynamics (1824) antedated Maxwell and JC Bose.


>> Radiation is essentially force.

> Well, but no.

It is force all right, going by fields magnetic and electric which relate to force. If we believe in aether, radiation as travelling electromagnetic waves using aether medium, etc.

> Actually you (apparently) mean 'fields' with 'essential'.

When I say heat, I mean radiant force, coming from electromagnetic fields, that exert force when something material is impacted.


> To call a field 'force' is totally wrong.

A field causes a force when impacted as I said. The notion of force very much attends an electric field. Look up the basics, relating to classical physics.



> The term 'force' stems from the measurement of a field. But fields exist
> without measurement.

Fields are practical, not theoretical, in classical physics. What exists without measurement cannot be deemed scientific. That way, unicorns, pixies, etc. exist by definition with no need for measurement.

Wherever there is electric force, pushing a current, or affecting charges otherwise, there has to be an electric field.



> So, if I decode your statement properly, you like to say, that heat
> transfer by radiation utilises the em-field.

No, radiation is travelling electromagnetic waves using the aether medium. Wherever this radiation is obstructed, electric forces (leading to voltage potentials) on the surfaces are created, creating currents, that cause the sensation of heat. to humans.

In short, the em-field is not like a soccer field. It is time and space varying electric field spread out from the radiator, to infinity, lessening with distance with the inverse square law.

> That would be actually correct.

>> With distance it becomes nearly zero from its source.
>> Creating the overall background radiation.

> Now you want to explain CMBR?

Easy. The fields from all the stars in the universe add up to form background radiation, universal, and composed of all frequencies. They make electronic oscillators possible. And nanotech too, with nanovoltages to drive nanomachines. The fields from those stars at infinity are zero, most of it from the nearby stars and galaxies.

bt

> I personally think, that CMBR has nothing to do with the big-bang, but
> is caused by the gravitational field of the Earth.
> ....


> TH

[Yatzyk Trampotova]

Thomas Heger wrote:

>>>> the Entropy 𝗜𝗦 time. Please stop 𝗻𝗼𝘁 undrestanding tensors. Look at
>>> No, because both terms are related, but not equal.
>>> Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
>>
>> They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started
>> talking about entropy.
>
> Heat transfer is possible in three different ways:
> transport of heated media (convection)
> dissipation of heat within some sort of stuff (conduction)
> radiation Therefore it is not true, that thermal energy is always
> transported by radiation.

totally irrelevant. It's about you don't know what time is.

𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀_𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝘁𝗼_𝗳𝗹𝗲𝗲_𝘁𝗼_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_–_𝗙𝗦𝗕
Russia’s domestic security service has reported that four assailants were
detained in Bryansk Region near the border
https://r%74.com/russia/594771-fsb-moscow-terrorists-flee-ukraine/

Anybody wandered why "Islamic State" has not shot single bullet aiming at
Israel?

Faux Noise is already claiming it was ISIS. Anything to deflect from the
Ukrainian Nazis. We shall see. This was horrifying.

If you haven't noticed it already, I will spell it out for you. ISIS is a
creation and under orders by ISrael and USA.

isis is aka al quelda, aka controlled by cia's middle east branch office.

Ukraine learns terrorism tactics from the u.s state department's cia
branch, and using ANY mercenaries they can find, to do the dirty job
inside russia. This is not the first attempt at Terrorism against russia
by cia,mi6 and also by ukraine.