Re: Properties

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 09/28/04 

Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:16:55 GMT

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:6ZWdnbSLF_kBIcTcRVn-tQ@conversent.net...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:hLi6d.260102$te5.13616219@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
> news:woCdnZ2-98s_KcTcRVn-vQ@conversent.net...
> > >
> > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> wrote
> > > in message news:rMh6d.260024$0e5.13596765@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> > > >
> > > > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > > news:U7-dnTw2RKBpAMTcRVn-hQ@conversent.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > > > > news:AQ%5d.6412$5O5.1425@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:7s-dnbmDmrrRacrcRVn-ug@conversent.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for taking the time to return to us with questions based
on
> > > > > > thoughtful considerations obviously formed from further research
> > > thinking
> > > > > > about the responses you were previously given.
> > > > >
> > > > > And the responses were about as valid as sending me to a site on
> cesium
> > > > > clocks just to prove MY point that even this observation of time
> relies
> > > upon
> > > > > a velocity and a distance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Look, why not just accept the events happen in a particular order,
> one
> > > after
> > > > > another. That's all there is. If not, then please answer the
> > > following:
> > > > >
> > > > > a If time is a fundamental property of nature,
> > > >
> > > > Time is what we read on out clocks.
> > >
> > > But saying so does not make it so.
> >
> > It does.
> > Time is what we read on out clocks.
> > There is a cat in the garden.
>
> I expected more from you. You snipped all of my other responses. Even if
> you regard them as having no value, to snip them is telling.
>
> And as to your response here, since when does a so-called scientist accept
> the notion that something is to be regarded as fact with no supporting
> evidence whatsoever?
>
> We have evidence of space
> We have evidence of velocity
> We have evidence of gravity
> We have evidence of mass
> We have evidence of charge
> We have evidence of temperature
> We have evidence of so many other natural phenomena, but yet we have no
> evidence of time whatsoever.

I notice you did not address what I said on the matter. We have evidence
that clocks built on different principles eg some based on crystal
oscillators and others based on say cease atoms, will stay in sync for
considerable periods of time. This is the evidence that a definition based
on time being what clocks read is a well formed definition. Your constant
quibbling they all involve velocity in some way is logically invalid eg
because of your ignorance of physics you do not even understand that while
velocity may be something that is applicable to a crystal QM says it is not
a concept applicable to an atom ie its electrons have no definite velocity.

Bill

All we have are various mechanisms, some of
> which utilize velocity and space to produce events on a regular and
> predictable basis. That's it. Nothing else.
>
> Velocity dilates, not time. There is credible evidence of my assertion.
> Mechanisms have been accelerated (placed into other FOR) and then returned
> only to show that their internal velocities (the rates at which all
> velocities within those mechanisms operate) have slowed. So do you have
any
> evidence that time dilates? Ohhhhhh, that's right, you've used the same
> mechanisms I've used except that without any supporting evidence
whatsoever,
> you've called them *clocks* and decreed that they track time, so it's time
> that dilates.
>
> Hmmmmmmmmmm. It's particularly amusing that right in front of your lying
> eyes you have evidence that velocity slowed, and yet you ignore it, jump
> right over it, and assert that some mysterious phenomenon for which there
is
> no evidence of its existence has dilated. That's pretty funny, actually.
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The genius of the Absolute
    ... Rulers shrinking. ... Show me the evidence. ... then it is possible to prove that K's rulers and clocks will ... > case of a general equation for velocity composition, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Properties
    ... This is the evidence that a definition ... >> on time being what clocks read is a well formed definition. ... >> quibbling they all involve velocity in some way is logically invalid eg ... > 2) Use the myth to assist you ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Emerging UFT (kst)
    ... Ken S. Tucker wrote: ... the velocity of light is retarded. ... is no experimental evidence, moreover there is evidence to the ... the speed (Shapiro's measurements) and direction are ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The constancy of the velocity of light
    ... There is no compelling evidence, however, ... | velocity of the pre-emitted light before switch is turned on? ... That paradox alone defeats the notion of constant speed. ... | gravitational model of the Universe, but I have not argued against this. ...
    (rec.org.mensa)
  • Re: Properties
    ... > evidence of control issues that you're obviously struggling with. ... However context shifting is a typical crank tactic. ... on time being what clocks read is a well formed definition. ... velocity may be something that is applicable to a crystal QM says it is not ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)