Some troubling assumptions of SR

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:


Have a look at the little discussion between Franz, Gregory and
Mati, and specially at puppet_sock's remark. I'm with him and
with Greg on this.
Franz agreed that he was happy to call the above a good definition
of a "perfect clock", which i.m.o. is a mere philosophical issue.
No one in the world uses perfect clocks. They use clocks, and
no physicist should need a definition of a clock, just like a
philosopher doesn't need a definition of pencil and paper to do
his job, and just like Lester's dentest doesn't need a definition
of teeth do start working on Lester's.

Ain't that the tooth.


Bob Kolker




Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

Armchair philosopers like Chester are not impressed by what
humatity has been doing since its dawn. They have decided that
time can not be defined without circularity, and to that purpose,
when you tell them to count their heart beat to see how many
beats it takes to see someonre run from here to there, they panic
and go: "Surely, it can't be *that* simple? What about Kant then???"

In a way, Kant might have gotten it right. We are all exposed to out
mother's heartbeat long before we draw a breath. Mayhap the constont
rythm we feel and even hear in utero implants the makings of a time
sense in our brains, which we later impose on the world. Time perception
is probably one of the first filters and processors our brains build and
this is even before birth.

Bob Kolker

"Bob Kolker" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

Armchair philosopers like Chester are not impressed by what
humatity has been doing since its dawn. They have decided that
time can not be defined without circularity, and to that purpose,
when you tell them to count their heart beat to see how many
beats it takes to see someonre run from here to there, they panic
and go: "Surely, it can't be *that* simple? What about Kant then???"

In a way, Kant might have gotten it right. We are all exposed to out
mother's heartbeat long before we draw a breath. Mayhap the constont
rythm we feel and even hear in utero implants the makings of a time
sense in our brains, which we later impose on the world. Time perception
is probably one of the first filters and processors our brains build and
this is even before birth.

Good point.

Perhaps Lester was Deaf On Conception ;-)

Dirk Vdm

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:36:49 -0500, David Marcus
wrote:

Lester Zick wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:24:47 -0500, David Marcus
wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"David Marcus" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"David Marcus" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel says...

Daryl, you are talking technically to a troll.
That does not work :-)

I thought that the terminology "troll" meant someone who made
intentionally provocative posts just to get a rise out of people.

It is my experience that this is exactly what he is doing.
On top of that he tries to make you believe that he is just
confused - by stressing that you are just confused :-)

Can you give some evidence for this? I haven't seen any such evidence on
sci.math.

Meanwhile you have your evidence :-)

Are you just saying that he is trying to be provocative or do you also
think that he really knows when he says something incorrect?

Both, of course.
Just sit back and watch...

I'm watching, but so far he seems to actually be confused. But, I'll
keep watching...

Please do. And while you're keeping watch allow me to comment on a
point you raised about a week ago concerning the greater convenience
modern mathematikers find in associating points with real numbers.

"Associating"? I don't recall saying that.

Unfortunately I didn't save the original post since I had more
pressing issues on my mind so I can't claim the citation is more than
a recollection. I think you used the word but can't be sure.

The point is that one can associate points with rationals and one can
associate points with irrationals such as the square root of 2, 3 etc.
through right angle rac construction However one cannot just associate
points with transcendentals such as pi etc. whether convenient or not
at least if the point of the association is codelineation with points
associated with rationals and irrationals because points associated
with transcendentals lie on curves and not straight lines like those
modern mathematikers find more convenient to point out rationals and
irrationals on.Of course I seem to actually be confused. Who wouldn't?

Are you saying that you are not trolling? Although, if you were, you
would probably say you weren't.

Well it's difficult to be sure since "troll" "crackpot" and the like
are usually blind accusations used to intimidate instead of explain.
In fact the only recent attempt to give "troll" some useful meaning
was Daryl's. I consider myself neither a "troll" nor "confused"
although on some occasions I've been wrong.

~v~~

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:25:07 -0500, Bob Kolker
wrote:

Lester Zick wrote:



Unfortunately you don't. Says more for retards than you.

The most common type of clock is a harmonic oscillator. That works for
everything from a grandfather clock (a kind of pendulum clock) to a
quartz crystal timing circuit to an atomic clock.

EM frequency is also a harmonic oscillator. A simple essay on harmonic
oscillators tells us nothing about best measures of time and the
reasons why.

Clocks based on harmonic oscillators will keep in pretty good step with
each other. I say "pretty good" because mechanical clocks are affected
by friction and temperature effects so they don't keep "perfect time".

Never thought they did. The problem I see is that they don't always
run. Not a very clever measure nor definition of time.

That fact that clocks tend to stay in step with each other, at least for
a limited duration, leads to the metaphysical assumption of time
independent of clocks.

Well you've finally said something correct, Bob. However I suspect we
might also get to a more subtle definition of time than simply "what
clocks measure". Especially when we don't know what clocks are beyond
saying they're harmonic oscillators because the question still remains
as to whether clocks are best measures of time all the time.

People have been using periodic or cyclic phenomenon to "keep time"
since the dawn of the human race. Our first clock was the earth with the
apparent motions of the sun, the moon and the stars resulting from the
revolution of the earth about its axis.

Which like clocks are unfortunately evanescent measures of time.

~v~~

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:23:07 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Bob Kolker" wrote in message ...
Lester Zick wrote:



Unfortunately you don't. Says more for retards than you.

The most common type of clock is a harmonic oscillator. That works for
everything from a grandfather clock (a kind of pendulum clock) to a
quartz crystal timing circuit to an atomic clock.

Clocks based on harmonic oscillators will keep in pretty good step with
each other. I say "pretty good" because mechanical clocks are affected
by friction and temperature effects so they don't keep "perfect time".
That fact that clocks tend to stay in step with each other, at least for
a limited duration, leads to the metaphysical assumption of time
independent of clocks.

People have been using periodic or cyclic phenomenon to "keep time"
since the dawn of the human race. Our first clock was the earth with the
apparent motions of the sun, the moon and the stars resulting from the
revolution of the earth about its axis.

Armchair philosopers like Chester are not impressed by what
humatity has been doing since its dawn. They have decided that
time can not be defined without circularity, and to that purpose,
when you tell them to count their heart beat to see how many
beats it takes

Shirley you jest, Dutch. I mean you couldn't possibly be talking about
a non circular "beats per unit time" definition of time could you? How
droll.

to see someonre run from here to there, they panic
and go: "Surely, it can't be *that* simple? What about Kant then???"

Oh **** Kant. I'm talking about truth here and not philosophical
pretentiousness. As an empiric the point is undoubtedly too subtle for
you grasp.

~v~~

"Lester Zick" wrote in message news
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:25:07 -0500, Bob Kolker
wrote:

Lester Zick wrote:



Unfortunately you don't. Says more for retards than you.

The most common type of clock is a harmonic oscillator. That works for
everything from a grandfather clock (a kind of pendulum clock) to a
quartz crystal timing circuit to an atomic clock.

EM frequency is also a harmonic oscillator. A simple essay on harmonic
oscillators tells us nothing about best measures of time and the
reasons why.

Clocks based on harmonic oscillators will keep in pretty good step with
each other. I say "pretty good" because mechanical clocks are affected
by friction and temperature effects so they don't keep "perfect time".

Never thought they did. The problem I see is that they don't always
run. Not a very clever measure nor definition of time.

That fact that clocks tend to stay in step with each other, at least for
a limited duration, leads to the metaphysical assumption of time
independent of clocks.

Well you've finally said something correct, Bob. However I suspect we
might also get to a more subtle definition of time than simply "what
clocks measure". Especially when we don't know what clocks are

Make that "when Lester Zick doesn't know what clocks are"

Dirk Vdm

"Lester Zick" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:23:07 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Bob Kolker" wrote in message ...
Lester Zick wrote:



Unfortunately you don't. Says more for retards than you.

The most common type of clock is a harmonic oscillator. That works for
everything from a grandfather clock (a kind of pendulum clock) to a
quartz crystal timing circuit to an atomic clock.

Clocks based on harmonic oscillators will keep in pretty good step with
each other. I say "pretty good" because mechanical clocks are affected
by friction and temperature effects so they don't keep "perfect time".
That fact that clocks tend to stay in step with each other, at least for
a limited duration, leads to the metaphysical assumption of time
independent of clocks.

People have been using periodic or cyclic phenomenon to "keep time"
since the dawn of the human race. Our first clock was the earth with the
apparent motions of the sun, the moon and the stars resulting from the
revolution of the earth about its axis.

Armchair philosopers like Chester are not impressed by what
humatity has been doing since its dawn. They have decided that
time can not be defined without circularity, and to that purpose,
when you tell them to count their heart beat to see how many
beats it takes

Shirley you jest, Dutch. I mean you couldn't possibly be talking about
a non circular "beats per unit time" definition of time could you?

Where did I say "per unit of time", retard?

Dirk Vdm

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:43:16 -0500, Bob Kolker
wrote:

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

Armchair philosopers like Chester are not impressed by what
humatity has been doing since its dawn. They have decided that
time can not be defined without circularity, and to that purpose,
when you tell them to count their heart beat to see how many
beats it takes to see someonre run from here to there, they panic
and go: "Surely, it can't be *that* simple? What about Kant then???"

In a way, Kant might have gotten it right. We are all exposed to out
mother's heartbeat long before we draw a breath. Mayhap the constont
rythm we feel and even hear in utero implants the makings of a time
sense in our brains, which we later impose on the world. Time perception
is probably one of the first filters and processors our brains build and
this is even before birth.

So lessee. If like an infinite number of monkeys Kant makes an
infinite number of comments (more or less) he might have gotten some
right? The difficulty is not so much whether but how can we tell which
is which? Seems to me he also had the first insight into the nature of
nebulae as galaxies. So I guess that makes two insights of some
significance. Goodie. Maybe in a hundred years we'll find another.

~v~~

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:43:44 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Bob Kolker" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

Armchair philosopers like Chester are not impressed by what
humatity has been doing since its dawn. They have decided that
time can not be defined without circularity, and to that purpose,
when you tell them to count their heart beat to see how many
beats it takes to see someonre run from here to there, they panic
and go: "Surely, it can't be *that* simple? What about Kant then???"

In a way, Kant might have gotten it right. We are all exposed to out
mother's heartbeat long before we draw a breath. Mayhap the constont
rythm we feel and even hear in utero implants the makings of a time
sense in our brains, which we later impose on the world. Time perception
is probably one of the first filters and processors our brains build and
this is even before birth.

Good point.

Perhaps Lester was Deaf On Conception ;-)

Unlike Dutch who was deaf, dumb, and blind upon cognition and remains
so to this day. "Dumb" only in the intellectual sense unfortunately.

~v~~