Relative

hypophetic-I put a stick in the ground, Im going to use this to measure one solar day using a hot spot on the sun, my clock runs faster at night. there is less dark hours than day hours, is that correct? and actually I agree. This thread and the posts have had great patience and understanding, and from an outside perspective viewer to science, this is much more of an adult behaviour I would expect from clever people. I applaud this science forum on this thread... a glass sphere you are looking through it I see this and see this must have some effect on how time is calculated for the universal age etc, ''A year, OTOH, can be measured by all, the way we've defined it.'' wrong sir - an aliens planet would be different to our own, a year would be longer or shorter, I live until iM 8 on mercury. You can not invent time, and use that has a standard, it is made up in reality, so science has made everything up concerning dating. True time, I am sure is something to do with from a central point extended out, the distance been a apart of the big bang, so if you can calculate distance v velocity and account for force, you may have correct time.

Well actually one of the biggest sites refused to give me my hand history.

How do not understand? if a outer circumference like the equator spins at 1000 mph , that would mean that any inner circumferences would rotate quicker , like on a race track, athletes have staggered start allowing for the outer circumference difference. there is less miles to cover is there is not?

Yes I understand and my explanation was more to show the travelling backwards part, I understand diameter and velocity difference. and would it not be faster than the equator?

The Earth rotates anti-clock wise at 1000mph The Earth also orbits the Sun.AT 67,108 mph Also anti-clockwise In the daytime hours in The UK I travel at 1000mph although static, anti-clockwise , backwards to the direction of the way of the Earth's orbital path around the Sun. At night, I travel at 1000mph and in the same direction as the orbital around the SUN.

Again I think you miss the point, online poker there is only about 10% that are winning players. Quite a few of these players are not even good, with really low ranks but get lucky. Most players will lose whether they are good or bad players by timing luck, Example I get aces, 20 times in one week, I win every time, by good timing, the aces i got were winning aces. The next week I do not see aces or kings or queens, I see a lot of 94's , 73's, etc. then by bad timing I spend the next month getting losing aces and so on. The distribution does not run according to statistics. Hit and miss all the time allowing no consistency of play that is why there is a low percent of winners. It suppose to be the luck of the shuffle, not the luck of the shuffle and then the luck of which deck you get, that is making twice the odds, making online poker - ev for most.

No because some players receive more than their fare share of aces by timing, some players receive more winning aces than losing aces, and so on, kings , queens etc. So variance can never run a true course because timing is the intervention. I want a fare game not a dishonest game.

yes

I still do not think you actually see the point, a fare distribution is that on average i get dealt aces every 1/221 hands, although we all know this is not definite and a certainty, but within the block of randomness of only 52 variables, in time aces will be dealt and over time they will be dealt on an equal proportion to all players, and the aces will generally win 8/10 times. The internet distribution takes all this away, it changes poker into roulette, and the luck of timing starts to play a big part. We can not or will never work out the algorithm's, although I can imagine there may be a pattern in chronological order or some other context. The point been , and no, not gamblers fallacy, imagine if you sat there for 500 hands and had not seen a pair of aces, the next deck was your turn to receive them, and another table gets them, 500 hands later the same, 500 hands later the same, etc etc, it does not work because of this.

My point been what you say the age of the universe is etc, would be entirely untrue. Spinning backwards Also you sort of measure distance with distance which does not make much sense.

You may want to rethink your time dilation and equate for that.

You really need to ask that? it is day time here, I am currently travelling at approx 1000 mph, you also if in darkness are travelling at approx 1000 mph, we are also both travelling forward along the eliptic orbit, however I travel forward but I also travel backwards with the earth's anti clockwise while you travel forward. Right hand forward, left hand back. Flying around the earth at the speed of C the opposite way will only make you dizzy , you will not time travel.

Yes , and maybe by doing an average calculation of all the planets at an equator point, an average may be better than what you have now, because the second is made up, age, etc, would also be made up, because years are based on seconds , so years are made up also, time starts from zero, the beginning where it was almost certainly dark only to start with. Darkness came first.

It is not about the winning or losing, it is about a fair share of distribution, example 1/221 hands i will likely receive a pair of aces. This process creates 1/?. By timing you could never receive aces, or a pair of aces, that was a winning pair of aces, and not a losing pair of aces. Or by timing you could technically although long odds, receive a pair of aces every go.

Yes I know it was a sun dial, and the shadow on the sun dial would of been split into sections, hence a second, a hour, but the truth is that second is still equal to the movement so is still equal to 0.288 mile which ever way you try to twist it, thats the outcome and the logic and fits. Do the other planets it works, I made it fit and I dont know maths that well. I am in day time here, if you are at night you are moving faster than me...... Hows that for a paradox?

Sidereal or solar, it still does not work and even touch on the levels of predicting time and age. For one we also spin backwards. Example,- swing your right hand around forward movement, pull your left hand back wards, this shows you we also go backwards and that should be accounted for even if you use time your way. According to current at night we are moving forward in time, in the day we move backwards in time.

I am north I am making nothing up, how many hours in one solar day? One solar day been one revolution, one revolution meaning there has to be a distance covered per hour , per second. Time was made up to fit.......it is not really relative to anything. Do we not count the years in days anymore?

The point been that history, already defines a second equal to 0.288 mile, because this how time was originally measured, and yes different points on the earth will have a different amount of time in one solar day. I know you now use the atomic clock, but the second on the atomic clock is equal to a second on a clock which is equal to 0.288 mile, history messed up big time and did not consider this. I think sidereal days give you nautical miles if i remember correctly.

yes in live play, but on the internet the process is different and makes it unfair, each player suppose to have the same chance , yet on line timing decides the fate of individuals, and two dice have very different variances, the same applies to two decks of cards. The randomness is not at question, the equal distribution over time is.

Maths is in the above link.

Ok I do understand, and I sort of just talk rather than making a presentation. As if I was there in person and just chit chatting. I will try to find the right words, maybe I should take my time between posts and try to convey in your terminology. http://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/time-is-only-accountable-by-decay-part-1/ this....

So now the online calculator lies also. How is that remotely gibberish when it is the truth? The dimensions are correct and were corrected on here I believe in previous thread, unless Im mixing my forums up. How can the maths be argued with , like you state to me, it fits does it not, the process fits, 1 second is equal to 0.288 mile, why what do you have it equal too?

yes, try time and the second been equal to 0.288 mile. My maths and logic is flawless , and the information that lead me to this was from current science. Science has time wrong, so what else is wrong when most is based on time, the speed of light etc? Your atomic clock second is based has close to a clock second has science could get, a clock second derived from a solar cycle. A solar second that is equal to 0.288 mile, and you can check the maths, history got it wrong.

I apologise I automatically presumed you would know. http://www.cardschat.com/poker-odds-expected-value.php aces are about 8/2 , by timing it would be possible to receive a losing ace ace, and it can easily become 0/10 .

I am not trying to claim any words, I am not trying to win awards or anything like that, I just think you have some of it wrong, or there is alternatives that also fit, so I dont share my thoughts, then that would be wrong. just in case...... I can not find a logical argument about my time, myself, I am trying to break my own thoughts but am unable too, the logic is solid.