0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Yes the arbitrary Caesium clocks have a synchronization off set, this should not be referred to as a time dilation. A Caesium clock and the monitoring of a change in timing is not any effect on time itself.
You are trying to say I do not know time and trying to direct that I am in some way thinking an arbitrary meaning of time means something compared to real time.
It is not I who has SR based on a time dilation of an arbitrary device.
I understand very well what time is and what time certainly is not.
How do you define Earth?Are Earth mass and rotation rate constant?How do you define the rotation of Earth?
Quote from: Thebox on 12/03/2015 22:33:37Yes the arbitrary Caesium clocks have a synchronization off set, this should not be referred to as a time dilation. A Caesium clock and the monitoring of a change in timing is not any effect on time itself.When discussing things within the theory of relativity, time dilation is the correct term. When discussing things withing your alternative theory, you are fully entitled to reject the terms and mechanisms of other theories, so that's fine.QuoteYou are trying to say I do not know time and trying to direct that I am in some way thinking an arbitrary meaning of time means something compared to real time.I'm trying to get to an understanding of what your theory is. It started out with the assertion that time is distance, and for some reason you wanted to equate the two via the rotation of a planet and the movement of part of that planet. That isn't a good place to start.QuoteIt is not I who has SR based on a time dilation of an arbitrary device.What arbitrary device does SR use?QuoteI understand very well what time is and what time certainly is not.So why do you want to equate it to distance in such a messy way?
Well, if you've got any brilliant ideas in your head, you need to learn to express them more clearly so that you don't confuse everyone to the point that they can't work out what your argument is. Your first post didn't set things up very well.Now you say that there's no time in empty space, so time only exists in that space when matter passes through it. This means that if we take an empty chunk of space called Jimmy, we can throw an elephant through it today, then leave it empty for a year before throwing a tiger through it. From the point of view of Jimmy, there is no time between the two events. What does this mean for the chunks of space on either side of it? Let's say we throw the elephant and tiger into Jimmy from a chunk of space called Sandy and they are caught by a friend in another chunk of space on the other side of Jimmy called Hamish. We throw the elephant through Jimmy from Sandy and it arrives in Hamish. We then wait a year and leave Jimmy empty, but time does not exist in Jimmy while it's empty. We then throw the tiger into Jimmy from Sandy and it arrives in Hamish just after the elephant, a whole year before we threw it. This would happen if no time has passed at all in Jimmy between the elephant and the tiger.However, you can argue that the tiger takes its own time with it and that its time is tied to the time of the elephant across the timeless void of Jimmy, so the separation of a year is maintained when it arrives in Hamish. What this reveals then is that space doesn't have time in it at all, but time is held solely in matter like elephants and tigers - the space these animals occupy has no time, but they (the animals) have time. An empty space of one size has no time and an empty inflated area of space later on has no time either, so an empty region of space can expand over time without having any time in it - it expands by magic without increasing in size moment by moment through a progression controlled under time.Your new theory will be a magnificent manifestation of witchcraft.
Well, if you've got any brilliant ideas in your head, you need to learn to express them more clearly so that you don't confuse everyone to the point that they can't work out what your argument is. .......Your new theory will be a magnificent manifestation of witchcraft.
That was funny I couldn't stop laughing.
A Sundial is not measuring time, it is measuring the relative movement of the shadow compared to the Suns position in the sky.
My interpretation of time is not incorrect because when science keeps agreeing with me about the origin of time, science is agreeing with me.
Quote from: TheboxA Sundial is not measuring time, it is measuring the relative movement of the shadow compared to the Suns position in the sky.Not only is this quite wrong but it shows that you don't know how physicists "define" time. Time is a description of the changes that occur in the universe. For example: consider a ball rolling down a hill. The role that time plays here is merely used to describe the location of the ball as it occupies different places in space. We say that the position changes "with time." In the same way the shadow that a Sundial casts on a dial is exactly what it means to measure time.Read and learn: http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/time.htmQuote from: TheboxMy interpretation of time is not incorrect because when science keeps agreeing with me about the origin of time, science is agreeing with me.I can promise you that's not true. Science is what scientists do and since I'm a scientist (a physicist to be exact) I can tell you how myself and all of my colleagues all over the world think of time and its as described in the above link.Where you got the idea that you're correct is beyond me. You most certainly never provided a reference to a textbook where any respectable physicist describes it in the same way you do.
Quote from: David Cooper on 13/03/2015 18:06:07Well, if you've got any brilliant ideas in your head, you need to learn to express them more clearly so that you don't confuse everyone to the point that they can't work out what your argument is. .......Your new theory will be a magnificent manifestation of witchcraft.Quote from: jeffreyH on 13/03/2015 22:05:34That was funny I couldn't stop laughing.Like you I find the OP's ideas and arguments impossibly confused. A central assumption concerns the measurement of time. The OP consistently misreports history as showing that time=distance. To set the record straight:A brief history of time (mmm, might use that as title of my next book)Early people viewed the sun going around the earth and could measure midday using a simple stick in the ground. From there the sundial was firmly established by the Egyptians as a method of measuring time by means of angular movement. They divided day and night each into 12 parts (their duodecimal system). The sundial was never able to measure seconds and did not relate time to distance. Variable hours based on the seasons were used until the invention of mechanical clocks in 16C when small units of time could be measured. At that stage units were borrowed from the Greeks who had devised the method of measuring angles in degrees, dividing the degree into 60 minutes and the minute into 60 seconds, a system we still use today in timekeeping.Along the way to our modern system there have been many ways of measuring time and it is possible that today we might easily be measuring time in litres of water, cubits of sand, length of a pendulum or, the one I really like, the standard candle. Think of the light physicists measuring the speed of light in meters/candle! Is light faster than a candle?At no point in history did we ever measure time as distance, this is a fabrication by the OP and all his consequential fabrications fall as a result (to use his own 'logic').There are many other fabrications, that 0=1, he claims there is no spacetime and no time dilation, but offers no proof. He falsely believes "the obvious avoidance of my other threads by members tells me that my ideas are pretty much un-arguable" , which shows a poor understanding of how this forum works.I have toyed with the idea that the OP is a troll, someone on TNS or another forum having a laugh and intending to reveal themselves on April 1st. It makes more sense to me than any of the 'theories' propounded here!
me- that would mean a period of time was always equal to a period of distance would it
Nonsense and incorrect. You know nothing about how I think and what leads us to define time that way. We all challenge everything we learn when we learn it and throughout our professional careers. On the other hand its clear to me that you don't even know how physicists define time. And you erroneously think that you can change a definition if you don't like it which is quite incorrect. Clearly you've given very little thought into the subject. I've read some of your posts above and can't find one that's correct.People like you think about these things for a very short period of time and think that they've put an enormous amount of thought into it. How long have you thought about this and what is your educational background in physics? Where did you learn how physicists define time in the first place? Let me guess - You never did learn it and you don't know what it is. You also never formally studied physics either, have you?
Quote from: TheboxI can promise you that yourself and your colleagues accepted time without question of afterthought.[/quoteNonsense and incorrect. You know nothing about how I think and what leads us to define time that way. We all challenge everything we learn when we learn it and throughout our professional careers. On the other hand its clear to me that you don't even know how physicists define time. And you erroneously think that you can change a definition if you don't like it which is quite incorrect. Clearly you've given very little thought into the subject. I've read some of your posts above and can't find one that's correct.People like you think about these things for a very short period of time and think that they've put an enormous amount of thought into it. How long have you thought about this and what is your educational background in physics? Where did you learn how physicists define time in the first place? Let me guess - You never did learn it and you don't know what it is. You also never formally studied physics either, have you?try 4 years of thinking about it.I made you a video to show you//www.youtube.com/watch?v=751emfoCneM
I made you a video to show you//www.youtube.com/watch?v=751emfoCneM
Quote from: Thebox on 14/03/2015 13:41:27I made you a video to show you//www.youtube.com/watch?v=751emfoCneMThere is little point in us watching your video or answering your other posts if you are starting from false assumptions.I still think you fail to understand the whole class of things called measurements. By your logic we have to say that a thermometer measures distance not temperature, and a barometer measures distance not pressure. Are you saying that time, temperature and pressure are all the same?To me a thermometer measures differences in temperature, a barometer measures differences in pressure and a clock measures differences in time.I think you need to go back to basics and study the theory of measurement.
I know very well the difference in units, an attempt at deflecting away from what is being said, deflecting towards me and not my ideas.I do not mention temperature or a barometer this is seemingly something you are trying to add to confuse the thread in some vain attempt to try to make myself look stupid.
Does someone who can knock a CGI example up in 5 minutes look stupid to you?A CGi video that certainly shows that space is not expanding and it is observed matter moving through space.
Quote from: Thebox on 14/03/2015 14:06:29I know very well the difference in units, an attempt at deflecting away from what is being said, deflecting towards me and not my ideas.I do not mention temperature or a barometer this is seemingly something you are trying to add to confuse the thread in some vain attempt to try to make myself look stupid.I think drawing the comparison of a sundial to a thermometer or barometer is very much on point--all three are instruments that are used to display something that is hard to visualize (time, temperature or pressure) in terms of a distance scale, which is easy to visualize. None of them equates what they measure with distance, they just use a distance which changes in a predictable way with the change in what they measure.Quote from: Thebox on 14/03/2015 14:06:29Does someone who can knock a CGI example up in 5 minutes look stupid to you?A CGi video that certainly shows that space is not expanding and it is observed matter moving through space.I assure you, we are all astounded. Never before have I seen such incredible graphics design, and to be done in only five minutes (how many miles is that?) you MUST be a genius.Sorry for the lapse into sarcasm, but honestly, making a video of a circle that changes size in a linear fashion and doesn't even move, doesn't seem like evidence of anything other than novice familiarity of the program used to generate the video. Beating your chest over such accomplishments will not earn you any respect in this forum or others. And if you think the content of said video is "proof" that "clearly shows that space is not expanding" then there is little more to say.