Topic: This is a fucking WATCH post since
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago #109,918
Fucking META deleted all the others, so fuck off Meta. So, the watch with the must number of jewels (internal not decorative) had 252 of them! 17 is the average. Mine has 23. Yours? Synthetic jewels are used to reduce friction in the watch’s automatic internals.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later[^] [v] #1,225,559
Why do you know and care about how many jewels are inside of a watch?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,560
@previous (B)
Because I am a watch enthusiast and I find it interesting, and I would like to discuss it with other watch enthusiasts.
Because I am a watch enthusiast and I find it interesting, and I would like to discuss it with other watch enthusiasts.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,561
My watch is made by Apple and is superior to your cheap Chinese digital watch
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 12 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,565
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 30 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,569
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,571
The jewels in a watch are not just mere components, but rather a tribute to the intricacy of watchmaking. They serve as frictionless bearings for the tiny moving parts inside a watch, reducing wear and tear, and improving precision. they should be admired and respected as the soul of horology, embodying the essence of meticulousness and attention to detail that defines watchmaking as an art.Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,574
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 19 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,575
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 2 years ago, 40 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,576
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,578
@1,225,575 (A)
There are designs for watches that use electromagnetic techniques to make friction negligible and hard to measure.
One design writes off further improvements as the efficiency of the timekeeping system is so perfect that the expansion of space would damage the piece before friction became a problem.
Do you follow any horological journals?
There are designs for watches that use electromagnetic techniques to make friction negligible and hard to measure.
One design writes off further improvements as the efficiency of the timekeeping system is so perfect that the expansion of space would damage the piece before friction became a problem.
Do you follow any horological journals?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 57 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,580
@previous (D)
I do. Negligible friction is still friction. Newtonian Physics does not allow true frictionless material.
I do. Negligible friction is still friction. Newtonian Physics does not allow true frictionless material.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,585
@previous (A)
Yes, in Newtonian physics, this would be impossible because all materials have some level of friction, even if it is very small.
However, you dumb fucking moron, we live in the post-Newtonian world.
The concept of mass is more complex, and it is possible for a material to have a mass that is so small that it would not experience any significant resistance as it moves through space.
In this scenario, the material would effectively be frictionless, as it would not experience any force that would slow it down or impede its motion. This is because the material's mass would be so small that the effects of gravity and other forces in the environment would be negligible.
Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity showed that Newton's laws of motion did not hold true for objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light. Similarly, the development of quantum mechanics showed that Newton's laws of motion did not fully explain the behavior of particles on a very small scale.
If you're trying to figure out how to make a bottle rocket for the high school science fair, or a drunkard who wants to improve their pool skills Newtonian physics are fine. For serious timekeepers, understanding modern physics is a must.
You are a charlatan.
Yes, in Newtonian physics, this would be impossible because all materials have some level of friction, even if it is very small.
However, you dumb fucking moron, we live in the post-Newtonian world.
The concept of mass is more complex, and it is possible for a material to have a mass that is so small that it would not experience any significant resistance as it moves through space.
In this scenario, the material would effectively be frictionless, as it would not experience any force that would slow it down or impede its motion. This is because the material's mass would be so small that the effects of gravity and other forces in the environment would be negligible.
Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity showed that Newton's laws of motion did not hold true for objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light. Similarly, the development of quantum mechanics showed that Newton's laws of motion did not fully explain the behavior of particles on a very small scale.
If you're trying to figure out how to make a bottle rocket for the high school science fair, or a drunkard who wants to improve their pool skills Newtonian physics are fine. For serious timekeepers, understanding modern physics is a must.
You are a charlatan.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,590
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 29 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,591
@1,225,585 (D)
you have a quantum watch whose parts move near the speed of light? Which brand is that?
you have a quantum watch whose parts move near the speed of light? Which brand is that?
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,594
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,597
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,605
@1,225,565 (A)
Tough Movement is great, but in terms of general Physics, moving mechanical parts have a greater likelihood to be damaged by shock, than solid state parts.
Tough Movement is great, but in terms of general Physics, moving mechanical parts have a greater likelihood to be damaged by shock, than solid state parts.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,606
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,607
@previous (A)
Analog watches do not "look great" to me. They look like a horse and buggy, or a newspaper, or a sun dial, or a rotary phone. They're for dinosaurs or posers, and they have been since about 1979 — and it's O.K. if you think otherwise, this is just what I think — my opinion.
Analog watches do not "look great" to me. They look like a horse and buggy, or a newspaper, or a sun dial, or a rotary phone. They're for dinosaurs or posers, and they have been since about 1979 — and it's O.K. if you think otherwise, this is just what I think — my opinion.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,608
@previous (E)
What you call progress is bad design, futurists trying to reinvent the wheel.
Have fun convincing the railroads to adopt Swatch time you twit.
What you call progress is bad design, futurists trying to reinvent the wheel.
Have fun convincing the railroads to adopt Swatch time you twit.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)