Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<17ca3fcfe5f7c4a6$104430$261710$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 23:19:30 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Perfect clocks Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: <17c9cc22cd9fce30$68$255119$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> <1qsmp8o.1jwlg3v1xk01r5N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <17c9eba1ee1fb432$338$256543$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <1qso39s.m68wpff47vhtN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <6a1c3b297bdda349a4b060c84dd8807a@www.novabbs.com> Content-Language: pl From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> In-Reply-To: <6a1c3b297bdda349a4b060c84dd8807a@www.novabbs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 51 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 21:19:30 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 2221 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17ca3fcfe5f7c4a6$104430$261710$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 2628 W dniu 27.04.2024 o 21:50, gharnagel pisze: > J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >> Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >> > >> > W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze: >> > > >> > > Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > More stable, more independent on the environment >> > > > and its fancies a device is - better it is. >> > > > Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely. > > A very strange assertion since clocks are supposed to > measure something that is at the very basis of reality. > >> > > Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature, >> > > What is "perfect nature", Lod? >> >> There is only one 'Nature', >> >> Jan > > Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts. > The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called > "time" ... but what is "time"? Time is what clocks indicate - your idiot guru was actually right at this point. It's no way a part of nature, sorry, poor halfbrain. Does it have one, or more, > parts? What is "now"? Clocks are supposed to model time, > so what what do we assume "time" is? > > At present, we assume the duration of a second of time is > described by 9,192, 631,770 cycles of the standard Cs-133 Oh, do you? Sane people don't, anyone can check GPS. > hyper-fine transition. Since that's a part of nature, Woz's > assertion makes no sense. Since it's not - YOUR assertions makes no sense, Har.