Re: Is time a measurement?(actually in search of edification)
From: Dirk Van de moortel (dirkvandemoortel_at_ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com)
Date: 07/13/04
- Next message: Jim Greenfield: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Previous message: V ertner Vergon: "Re: Light & Matter:Two Modes of the Same Thing."
- In reply to: Leonard Pardin: "Re: Is time a measurement?(actually in search of edification)"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Is time a measurement?(actually in search of edification)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 07:14:31 GMT
"Leonard Pardin" <leoppard@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message news:d746a243.0407121842.699d2a9c@posting.google.com...
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<HhwIc.183252$k15.8682555@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
> > "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:iLvIc.1448$Yj7.17721547@news-text.cableinet.net...
> > >
> > > "Sintrinsic" <sin@dwwx.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8c0229af.0407060355.2b27eee@posting.google.com...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > | My thanks to all that may respond,
> > > | Brandon DuPree
> > >
> > > Ok, let's see what we know, as scientists,
> >
> > You, a scientist?
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
>
> Well, Androcles saw through the Einstein myth. So he's one up on
> many recognized scientists holding high positions today.
Oh yes, like he himself said, he stands
"upon the shoulders of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler,
Newton, Michelson, Balmer, Rydberg and Planck."
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Shoulders.html
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
> Androcles's
> analysis of the concept of time is right on. Time is simply a
> measurement, just like inches and miles. A clock is simply a
> measuring instrument, like a ruler. The ruler measures length; a clock
> measures duration. You can't have negative length of a real object,
> and you can't have negative duration of a real event.
That is all true. Androcles can copy and paste.
>
> If we all agree on a standard timepiece, a standard sequence of
> small events to measure against, then we all know what we mean when we
> speak of a certain length or a certain amount of time.
Indeed as well.
> The problem
> starts when someone suggests that when some clocks change their
> oscillations time itself is changing.
The problem starts when people refuse to accept what they measure
on their own agreed upon instruments. Physics is not about what
stupid people want, it is about what instruments measure. It provides
a framework that helps predict what will be measured in the next
experiment.
> That suggests that "time" is
> something other than a simple measurement of duration. Time becomes
> something like a physical object that can change its shape. It
> becomes even more nonsensical when someone connects the concept of
> empty space that curves with a constantly changing, nonstandard, and
> undefined thing called time.
I bet you can't exactly show at which point in his text Androcles
went berserk.
Dirk Vdm
- Next message: Jim Greenfield: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Previous message: V ertner Vergon: "Re: Light & Matter:Two Modes of the Same Thing."
- In reply to: Leonard Pardin: "Re: Is time a measurement?(actually in search of edification)"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Is time a measurement?(actually in search of edification)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
