Time and teh Big Bang

In article ,
Spaceman wrote:
The *only* people who have been wrong in this thread so far
have been "Spaceman", who claimed something about Newton's view of
time that is *directly* contradicted by Newton himself, [...]
Only the fools that never actually learned classical physics
could ever say such bull**** about "Newton's view" contradicting
"absolute" time that I just explained.

In ", you wrote:
" Time does not "flow" at all in Newtonian mechanics,
" Newton uses time the scientific way, [...]. "

In "Principia" [the Motte-Cajori translation; the recent Cohen-Whitman
translation is essentially identical], Newton wrote:
" Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own
" nature, flows equably without relation to anything external [...]. "

I rest my case.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham

Andy Walker wrote:
In article ,
Spaceman wrote:
The *only* people who have been wrong in this thread so far
have been "Spaceman", who claimed something about Newton's view of
time that is *directly* contradicted by Newton himself, [...]
Only the fools that never actually learned classical physics
could ever say such bull**** about "Newton's view" contradicting
"absolute" time that I just explained.

In ", you wrote:
" Time does not "flow" at all in Newtonian mechanics,
" Newton uses time the scientific way, [...]. "

In "Principia" [the Motte-Cajori translation; the recent
Cohen-Whitman translation is essentially identical], Newton wrote:
" Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own
" nature, flows equably without relation to anything external
[...]. "

I rest my case.

You rest your case in **** then.
He used the word "flow" but in a non flowing method.
and if you actually read the entire thing.
The "extra parts after the word flow"
It means it does not relate to anything else in Newtonian
views so basically it does not "physically" flow like any other
substance that does "flow".
You are trying to use it against the statement,
I am simply removing the word "flow" and using the word
"counts" since that is all clocks do.
They count motion of a ticker and nothing more than such.
They do not "measure" the flow of time.
They count the motions of a ticker.
Get a clue some day.
You are way off when you say "time" "flows" and it only proves
you have no clue about how clocks work.
I rest my case.
And my case is backed by science that does not call time
a flowing substance like you are trying to make it into.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman

On Aug 31, 9:24 am, (Andy Walker) wrote:

" Time does not "flow" at all in Newtonian mechanics,
" Newton uses time the scientific way, [...]. "


Bwahahahahaaaaaa. . . .!!!!

Y wrote:
On Aug 31, 9:24 am, (Andy Walker) wrote:

" Time does not "flow" at all in Newtonian mechanics,
" Newton uses time the scientific way, [...]. "


Bwahahahahaaaaaa. . . .!!!!

Funny that you don't get why it is true, even though
Newton called it a "flow" it is not a flow.
It is a non variable counting method in science,
I see you lost science when you laugh about something
like the above.