Re: Perfect clocks

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.