"Lester Zick" <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
 news:vhget25ag7vrt2v08dfubvrmt3ji2k1009@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:30:12 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>"Lester Zick" <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:6cbct2da6qcevf55aluc2epqup4qeqbto7@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:41:34 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>>> <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Lester Zick" <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:qrtbt2h3jhegfj6oaku9t1fb9cqnu2q7fg@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:11:40 -0700, Lester Zick
>>>>> <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:36:23 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>>>>>><dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Lester Zick" <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:r489t218vssjf39kanki6tu655iprcph66@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:41:34 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>>>>>>>> <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Lester Zick" <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:s397t25dod92l9jminfg0ipu9o2pag0d9j@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:40:00 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>>>>>>>>>>><dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Lester Zick" <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2fl6t2tao3p0mrprqcv1hc4pvk7ppk40c1@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:23:07 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:53f6nlF1rvl0eU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You didn't, Shirley. I just filled in the blanks for you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ha, he filled in the blanks for me.
>>>>>>>>> Try to avoid filling blanks
>>>>>>>>> You really don't have the brain for filling blanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well someone really has to. It's about time you began to learn about
>>>>>>>> temporal physics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I said EM
>>>>>>>>>> frequency was a better measure of time than clocks were because unlike
>>>>>>>>>> clocks they didn't stop and you said the units of EM frequency were
>>>>>>>>>> count per unit time to make your point that my definition of time was
>>>>>>>>>> circular and I returned the favor by pointing out that your definition
>>>>>>>>>> of time as what clocks measure is just as circular because what it
>>>>>>>>>> measures is counts per unit time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A clock counts. Period.
>>>>>>>>>    "The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the
>>>>>>>>>    radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
>>>>>>>>>    hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."
>>>>>>>>>       http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can use your heart to count the number of beats it takes
>>>>>>>>> for a stone to fall from a tower. You call that number "the time"
>>>>>>>>> and the unit of time is one heart beat.
>>>>>>>>> You can use your heart to count the number of beats it takes
>>>>>>>>> for a stone to fall from a tower that is twice as high.
>>>>>>>>> You can use your heart to count the number of beats it takes
>>>>>>>>> for a stone to fall from a tower that is 3 times as high.
>>>>>>>>> etc...
>>>>>>>>> With this you can find out that the distance covered by a falling
>>>>>>>>> rock is proportional to the square of time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Proportional to the square of what exactly?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can't you read, retard?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, Shirley, apparently I can read better than you can explain. Time
>>>>>> is what a clock measures and a clock is what measures time. Circular
>>>>>> facto.
>>>>
>>>> No, retard. Time is what a clock measures, and a clock is
>>>> that thing that you hear inside your fat body, or that thing
>>>> you carry around your fat wrist, or that thing that rises over
>>>> the horizon, or that thing the engineers and physicists of our
>>>> species (-not yours, apparently-) have created to count
>>>> radiation transitions in cesium atoms.
>>>
>>> In other words
>>
>> Don't do it.
>> You are too stupid to paraphrase.
> 
> Of course I'm stupid. Just quite so stupid as yourself.
> 
>>> a clock is something or other which has no frequency
>>
>> No, a clock is someting like that thing that you hear inside your fat
>> body, or that thing you carry around your fat wrist, or that thing
> 
> All of which have frequency, Shirley, or they don't work.
> 
>> that rises over the horizon, or that thing the engineers and
>> physicists of our species (-not yours, apparently-) have created
>> to count radiation transitions in cesium atoms.
> 
> Which appear not to possess frequency like a clock? My how droll.
> 
>>> and which is like your thought processes stopped most of the time.
>>>
>>>>    "The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the
>>>>    radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
>>>>    hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."
>>>>       http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
>>>>
>>>> The only thing that is circular here is your de-facto self-inflicted
>>>> pigheaded autistic cluelessness. It is so circular that I'm already
>>>> bored with it. Afaiac it has lost its entertainment potential.
>>>
>>> Most circular definitions do including yours. I have yet to see a
>>> heart beat without a frequency
>>
>> I count 4 of my heart beats while 
> 
> This "while" thingie. What is that? It wouldn't be another of your
> circular references to time whilst claiming that you aren't circling
> the wagons, would it, Shirley?
> 
>>                                   I punch you 10 times on the nose.
> 
> Oh yeah, Shirley. You and what army of effete intellectuals?
> 
>> The frequency of punches on your nose is 2.5 per heart beat.
> 
> I'd love to see you try it, Shirley. More likely 0.0 if your heart has
> no frequency. The old lumpen proletariat didactic technique.
> 
> ~v~~