More stable, more independent on the environment
and its fancies a device is - better it is.
Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

Le 26/04/2024 à 11:59, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
> More stable, more independent on the environment
> and its fancies a device is - better it is.
> Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

Like nature despised you completely? I understand why you
hate nature then :-)

W dniu 26.04.2024 o 12:29, Python pisze:
> Le 26/04/2024 à 11:59, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
>> More stable, more independent on the environment
>> and its fancies a device is - better it is.
>> Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
>
> Like nature despised you completely? I understand why you
> hate nature then :-)
>
>

See, trash - I've proven the mumble of your
beloved guru to be not even consistent, and
you can do nothing about it apart of raving
and spitting.
But, of course, you do what you can.

BTW, have you already learnt what a function
is? Are you still trying to determine its
properties applying a French definition of
a different word?

Le 26/04/2024 à 13:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> W dniu 26.04.2024 o 12:29, Python pisze:
>> Le 26/04/2024 à 11:59, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
>>> More stable, more independent on the environment
>>> and its fancies a device is - better it is.
>>> Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
>>
>> Like nature despised you completely? I understand why you
>> hate nature then :-)
>>
>>
>
> See, trash - I've proven

that you are a demented ranting old fart? Sure.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> More stable, more independent on the environment
> and its fancies a device is - better it is.
> Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

What would a "perfect clock" be made of, a Superman costume?

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

W dniu 26.04.2024 o 14:21, Python pisze:
> Le 26/04/2024 à 13:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> W dniu 26.04.2024 o 12:29, Python pisze:
>>> Le 26/04/2024 à 11:59, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
>>>> More stable, more independent on the environment
>>>> and its fancies a device is - better it is.
>>>> Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
>>>
>>> Like nature despised you completely? I understand why you
>>> hate nature then :-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> See, trash - I've proven
>
> that you are a demented ranting old fart? Sure.

The mumble of your idiot guru was not even
consistent, and it has been proven. Insults
cast by some religious maniacs are changing
nothing, sorry, trash.

Le 26/04/2024 à 18:25, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
....
> The mumble of Maciej Wozniak was not even
> consistent, and he has been proven demented

Sure.
..
> Insults cast by some old Polish maniac are changing
> nothing, sorry,

Exactly.

> trash.

Nice signature.

W dniu 26.04.2024 o 18:31, Python pisze:
> Le 26/04/2024 à 18:25, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
> ...
>> The mumble of Maciej Wozniak was not even
>> consistent, and he has been proven demented
>
> Sure.

No, I didn't write it. Poor stinker Python is
impudently lying, as expected from a Shit's
worshipper.

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.

Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,

Jan

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.
>
> Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,

What is "perfect nature", Lod?

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> 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.
>
> Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature, Jan

𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮_𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗳𝗲𝗮𝗿_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_–_𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗰_𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿
Moscow would lose in a war with the West, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw
Sikorski has claimed
https://www.r%74.com/russia/596641-russia-must-fear-nato-poland/

At the end of the speech, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski
unzipped his pants, pulled out his DK, and measured it for the crowd.

Leave us Poles alone with this Sikorski with dual citizenship and a wife
in the USA... Don't hate us because of Sikorski, because we hate him
too...
And we have no problems with you Russians or other countries. (in fact we
have problems with the Kiev regime and Bandera saboteurs in our country)

Our Western ruling class and NATO 'leaders' are very afraid now. They know
their time is short and a length of rope and tree branches are all that
awaits them for their war criminality, terrorism, treason, and Genocide
against the entire human species.

Yes, destroying the lives of Ukrainians wasn't enough, let's turn another
non-Anglosaxon country into launchpad against Russia.

I expect his AMERICAN NEOCON wife, Anne Applebaum, wrote his speech. 👹 The
epidome of Demasculation.

With a wife like that, suicide is arguably the best option. Taking an
entire country with you is something else though.

Interesting how the small dog new members bark the loudest

Ahhh, he's just mad about all those Polish "mercenaries" Russia wiped out
in Kupyansk. 😆

Le 26/04/2024 à 20:41, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
> W dniu 26.04.2024 o 18:31, Python pisze:
>> Le 26/04/2024 à 18:25, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
>> ...
>>> The mumble of Maciej Wozniak was not even
>>> consistent, and he has been proven demented
>>
>> Sure.
>
> No, I didn't write it

I corrected a few typos.

W dniu 26.04.2024 o 22:09, Python pisze:
> Le 26/04/2024 à 20:41, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
>> W dniu 26.04.2024 o 18:31, Python pisze:
>>> Le 26/04/2024 à 18:25, Maciej Wozmaniak a écrit :
>>> ...
>>>> The mumble of Maciej Wozniak was not even
>>>> consistent, and he has been proven demented
>>>
>>> Sure.
>>
>> No, I didn't write it
>
> I corrected a few typos.

You lied impudently, as expected from a Shit's
fanatic. Just like your twin-idiot Dono.

Well, The Shit of your idiot guru has been proven
inconsistent; what else could you do.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> W dniu 26.04.2024 o 22:09, Python pisze:
>>>>> The mumble of Maciej Wozniak was not even consistent, and he has
>>>>> been proven demented
>>>>
>>>> Sure.
>>>
>>> No, I didn't write it
>>
>> I corrected a few typos.
>
> You lied impudently, as expected from a Shit's fanatic. Just like your
> twin-idiot Dono. Well, The Shit of your idiot guru has been proven
> inconsistent; what else could you do.

your country a man marry anozer man.

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.
> >
> > Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,
>
> What is "perfect nature", Lod?

There is only one 'Nature',

Jan

W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:50, J. J. Lodder pisze:
> 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.
>>>
>>> Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,
>>
>> What is "perfect nature", Lod?
>
> There is only one 'Nature',

And that "perfect nature" you mentioned - is?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> W dniu 27.04.2024 o 11:50, J. J. Lodder pisze:
> > 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.
> >>>
> >>> Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,
> >>
> >> What is "perfect nature", Lod?
> >
> > There is only one 'Nature',
>
> And that "perfect nature" you mentioned - is?

Nature is perfect because it could not be possible any other way.

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

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"? 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
hyper-fine transition. Since that's a part of nature, Woz's
assertion makes no sense. OTOH, do we count anything built
by humans as a part of nature, too?

That fact appears to be that there is "something" that rules
the passage of time, but we have no clue as to what that is.
One guy with whom I had a discussion about that: it's a
quantum action effect. Maybe we'll find it someday, 'way
down there at the Planck time level? Could be, I dunno.

On 04/27/2024 12:50 PM, gharnagel wrote:
> 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"? 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
> hyper-fine transition. Since that's a part of nature, Woz's
> assertion makes no sense. OTOH, do we count anything built
> by humans as a part of nature, too?
>
> That fact appears to be that there is "something" that rules
> the passage of time, but we have no clue as to what that is.
> One guy with whom I had a discussion about that: it's a
> quantum action effect. Maybe we'll find it someday, 'way
> down there at the Planck time level? Could be, I dunno.

Time is usually considered a continuous quantity.

I hope that people who study quantum mechanics understand
that:

superstrings are as smaller than atoms as atoms than us,

that Planck length and Angstrom's are about either side atoms,

that Technicolour is a theory that it's quarks all the way down,

that the fundamental physical constants of atomic quantities get smaller
measure over time in energy of experiment, called "running constants",

that GR is in front of SR not the other way around,

that particle mechanics or electron physics is sort of
a conceit whether they even exist,

that particle/wave duality is a sort of wave-particle/wave-resonance
dichotomy,

that in mathematics there are at least three different definitions of
continuity,

that measure theory for the measure problem indicates the real character
of real analysis the integral calculus,

that time is a continuous quantity,

and, in physics,
it's open and it's closed,
it's flat and it's curved,
the cosmological constant is vanishing yet non-zero,
and time symmetry has never been falsified.

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.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >
> > More stable, more independent on the environment
> > and its fancies a device is - better it is.
> > Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.
>
> What would a "perfect clock" be made of, a Superman costume?

The perfect clock in Albert Einstein is any 'clock' that is related
to...atomic bombs.

the list is long...

but I'll start the list
cause yous find 'thinking' causes too much energy on your part...

doomsday clock
denotation atomic bomb clock

oooh my head hurts.

--
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 wrote:
>
> W dniu 27.04.2024 o 21:50, gharnagel pisze:
> >
> 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.

So the Great Quarterbrain, Wozzie, believes time is fictitious,
does he? Typical falsehoods from the king of phoniness.

Everyone knows that time is nature's way of keeping everything
from happening at once. So it is not only part of nature, it's
at the very basis of nature.

> > 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,

Sane people DO, which proves Wozzie-boy is not sane.

> anyone can check GPS.

Yes, they can; but, apparently, Wozzie is incapable of figuring
out what's happening. Or he is just fatally dishonest. One can
never be sure NOW, but he will run into the life-grinder one day:

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their
part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second
death." -- Revelations 21:8

> > 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.

"He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool"

So is Wozzie a fool and avoids the fate above, or is he a liar and runs
into it head-on?

“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may
deride it, but in the end, there it is.” -- Winston Churchill

"Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with
important matters." -- Albert Einstein

“To believers, the atheist and the religiously corrupt boil down
to the same person, the self-righteous: one denies Truth to fit
his own agenda; the other manipulates Truth to fit his own agenda.”
― Criss Jami

Wozzie appears to be the second kind: a manipulator of the truth, but then
he often denies it straight out.

W dniu 28.04.2024 o 02:08, gharnagel pisze:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 27.04.2024 o 21:50, gharnagel pisze:
>> >
>> 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.
>
> So the Great Quarterbrain, Wozzie, believes time is fictitious,
> does he?

That's right, Harrie. UTC, TAI, zone times are
kind of fictitious - while your local proper time
absurd, on the other hand, is completely fictitious.
So was Newton's absolute time, of course.

> Everyone knows that time is nature's way of keeping everything

A bunch of mystical religious idiots may know.
Clocks are human made devices, time is a part of
human organization. Has nothing in common with
with nature. And with your precios experiments
neither.

>> > 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,
>
> Sane people DO

Anyone can check GPS, sane people do assume that
it is 9,192, 631,770 on Earth but 9,192, 631,774
on a GPS satellite.
Your insults and ravings can change nothing, Harrie.
Sorry, poor trash.

On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:

> Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
> The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
> "time" ...

Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
or requires time to exist then nothing is left.

> but what is "time"?

Many things are called "time". Without a disambiguating context
"time" is not a concept but a topic.

--
Mikko

W dniu 28.04.2024 o 11:40, Mikko pisze:
> On 2024-04-27 19:50:34 +0000, gharnagel said:
>
>> Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
>> The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
>> "time" ...
>
> Time is not a part of nature. If you remove time and everthing
> that is in a time or is a part of time or is a property of time
> or requires time to exist then nothing is left.
>
>> but what is "time"?
>
> Many things are called "time".

Does every of them have the property above,
poor halfbrain?
Time is a tool for describing things. If you
take it away - everything stays as it is, you
just can't say a word about it anymore.