The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Time  (Read 17552 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Time
« on: 11/03/2015 10:20:21 »
The value of 1 second is presently defined using an atomic clock based on the rate of a Caesium atom .

A 1 second value that is equal to 1 second of before 1960 that was based on Sun rise and Sunset.

Sun rise and Sunset being relative to motion of the Earth relative to the Sun.

A value that could only represent a distance of motion travelled.

I propose that presently 1 second is equal to a distance, a value of 1 second is equal to 0.2875 miles per second of the Earth's rotation.

I have researched looking for variants to this for purpose of eliminating my idea, and I am unable to find variants, I am only able to find invariants confirming my conferred thoughts.





 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #1 on: 11/03/2015 16:59:25 »
You've made a lot of proposals in this forum. Why? You can't get anywhere by posting it here since you need to get physicists in the field of standards to listen to you.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #2 on: 11/03/2015 18:04:28 »
I found here, no one elsewhere wants to listen, apparently I talk gibberish and science can not understand my ideas, according to science my ideas have no merit and just about everywhere banned me. 

 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #3 on: 11/03/2015 18:34:06 »

... a value of 1 second is equal to 0.2875 miles per second...


I think I found the problem, the units don't match up. 1 second cannot be equal to any number of miles per second. One is a unit of time, the other is a unit of speed.

I also don't see the value in changing our definition of second. True, it is currently an arbitrary definition, but any definition of a unit of time will be arbitrary. The important thing is that it can be agreed upon and remeasured as needed to serve as a ruler for other high-accuracy measurements.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #4 on: 11/03/2015 18:35:12 »
I found here, no one elsewhere wants to listen, apparently I talk gibberish and science can not understand my ideas, according to science my ideas have no merit and just about everywhere banned me.

If you are getting banned from everywhere, there might be a problem with your approach that requires some reconsideration on your part...
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #5 on: 11/03/2015 18:54:07 »
''1 second cannot be equal to any number of miles per second. One is a unit of time, the other is a unit of speed''

Yes 1 second cannot be equal to a distance, it should not be equal to a distance , but the answers science gave me confirms that the arbitrary meaning of 1 second is equal to a distance by the way time was recorded in the origin of time recorded by night and day.

I understand the situation of uses , however an arbitrary use of time based on motion of a distance travelled will not give us an accurate age to anything.

Speed is defined by time, time is defined by a distance travelled, science have the speed of light faster than arbitrary time based on motion.


My approach may be not of scientific presentation, but I am not a scientist or a Shakespeare.


The maths is simple,

1035 mph * 24 hrs = 24840 miles

24840 miles / 86400 seconds = 0.2875 mile per second


The speed of light is 299792458 m/s

0.2875 miles per second converted to meters is 462.69 m per second, I asked science how can the speed of light be faster than time
647933.731008 times faster than time,

To me it makes relatively no sense.












 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #6 on: 11/03/2015 19:51:38 »
These numbers do not imply that light is faster than time, only that light is faster than the rotation of the Earth.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #7 on: 11/03/2015 20:09:31 »
That would be a fare and true assessment if it were not for the origin of recording time.

Do you personally know any other way of the origin of time recording other than night and day and relative motion of the Earth to the Sun?

Time is based on the rotation of the Earth.

 
« Last Edit: 11/03/2015 20:11:53 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #8 on: 11/03/2015 21:46:53 »
 Added history of time , notice the parts I have put in bold.

''Ever since man first noticed the regular movement of the Sun and the stars, we have wondered about the passage of time. Prehistoric people first recorded the phases of the Moon some 30,000 years ago, and recording time has been a way by which humanity has observed the heavens and represented the progress of civilization.
Natural Events
The earliest natural events to be recognised were in the heavens, but during the course of the year there were many other events that indicated significant changes in the environment. Seasonal winds and rains, the flooding of rivers, the flowering of trees and plants, and the breeding cycles or migration of animals and birds, all led to natural divisions of the year, and further observation and local customs led to the recognition of the seasons.

Measuring time by the Sun, the Moon and the Stars

As the sun moves across the sky, shadows change in direction and length, so a simple sundial can measure the length of a day. It was quickly noticed that the length of the day varies at different times of the year. The reasons for this difference were not discovered until after astronomers accepted the fact that the earth travels round the sun in an elliptic orbit, and that the earth's axis is tilted at about 26 degrees. This variation from a circular orbit leads to the Equation of Time (see 'Note 2' below) which allows us to work out the difference between 'clock' time and 'sundial time'.

Another discovery was that sundials had to be specially made for different latitudes because the Sun's altitude in the sky decreases at higher latitudes, producing longer shadows than at lower latitudes. Today, artists and astronomers find many ways of creating modern sundials.''

http://nrich.maths.org/6070

google best answer -'' The Egyptians were (possibly) the first to realize that the shortest shadow cast by an obelisk would always point in the same direction, regardless of the season. Starting from there, they managed to determine the time of day based on the length and direction of the shadow cast by an obelisk.

Since it was inconvenient to build huge stone pillars everywhere, they eventually realized that even a tiny version, a stick in the ground, could accomplish the same. This was really the origin of the first sundial, which, contrary to popular belief, was not invented by the Romans.

As to why there are 24 hours in the day, well no one is sure who developed this system of measurement. It was probably the Egyptians again, because if you have to build pyramids that huge, you can be damn sure you'll care about the time. If you look on Wikipedia, it will tell you the 12 hour system was invented sometime between 2 BC and 1500 AD. ''


The length of one day being equal to one cycle of motion and one cycle of a set distance, a value of time being the same as motion distance travelled, a sun dial and shadow is based on relative motion to the sun, a sundial based on 360 degrees.

Speed came after time, the orbital spin speed was not known at the time.




« Last Edit: 11/03/2015 22:03:41 by Thebox »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #9 on: 11/03/2015 21:56:13 »
If the solar system had been configured differently then we wouldn't be measuring in seconds. It would be something else. Maybe still based on the period of rotation of the earth but with a different rotational period. It has nothing to do with the speed of light. To determine that you simply need to do what Max Planck did and find the fundamental units that do not vary. Forget the second as it is arbitrary. This is fundamental. People will not tolerate views that do not make scientific sense. Get a book on mechanics out of your local library and start reading that.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #10 on: 11/03/2015 22:10:52 »
I think you must be misunderstanding or missing the entire point, 15 degrees on a sundial is equal to 1 hour.

15 degrees on a sundial is also equal to an amount of distance travelled relative to the Sun and of the sun, the shadow on the sundial is moving a distance.


A Sundial is not measuring time, it is measuring the relative movement of the shadow compared to the Suns position in the sky.

Also do not forget in history when a recording of time was first derived, they thought is was a flat earth, sun rise and sunset and did not know about rotation of the Earth.

A sundial or using any form of motion to measure time is not measuring time but simply measuring relative timing of motion.  A synchronization of timing of motion.


When light speed was found, the scientist were under the perceived impression of time.   

299792458 m/s   , a second based on a distance. 


How can that be accurate?

it reads c=299792458 m  per  462.69 m 







« Last Edit: 11/03/2015 23:09:41 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #11 on: 11/03/2015 23:11:30 »
I think you must be misunderstanding or missing the entire point .........

Have you considered that it might be yourself who is missing the point. Read the previous post

If the solar system had been configured differently then we wouldn't be measuring in seconds. It would be something else. Maybe still based on the period of rotation of the earth but with a different rotational period.

What you are saying is already well understood, as jefferyH says it is an arbitrary measurement and history is irrelevant. We use it and it works.

 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #12 on: 11/03/2015 23:19:46 »
I think you must be misunderstanding or missing the entire point .........

Have you considered that it might be yourself who is missing the point. Read the previous post

If the solar system had been configured differently then we wouldn't be measuring in seconds. It would be something else. Maybe still based on the period of rotation of the earth but with a different rotational period.

What you are saying is already well understood, as jefferyH says it is an arbitrary measurement and history is irrelevant. We use it and it works.

I read the previous post and it is not me missing the point when it is my point.

''it is an arbitrary measurement and history is irrelevant. We use it and it works.''


You really think it is irrelevant that 1 second is equal to 462.69 m a distance and not time,  and the said speed of light being faster than time devised by Humanity ?

What happened to science?









 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #13 on: 11/03/2015 23:32:41 »

You really think it is irrelevant that 1 second is equal to 462.69 m a distance and not time,  and the said speed of light being faster than time devised by Humanity ?

As has been pointed out before 1 second is not equal to any distance, the speed of light is not faster than time devised by humanity.
You are confusing yourself in this and the other posts. You are unlikely to be banned from this forum, but in order for people to spend time answering your posts, you need to start making sense.

What happened to science?

Science is doing very well, thank you.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #14 on: 11/03/2015 23:34:35 »


What happened to science?
The greater question here is: What has happened to paying attention to those who are trying to help?
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #15 on: 11/03/2015 23:37:26 »
but in order for people to spend time answering your posts, you need to start making sense.

And listening to those who are trying to help!
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #16 on: 11/03/2015 23:41:17 »
My posts are not confusing, you are avoiding discussion. The evidence has been presented, true evidence of the history of time .

I have presented the maths to go with it.


I have presented truths about sundials and how time was not been measured.


You have not pointed out anything, you have just denied it and said it is wrong by presumption the present information is correct and in noway have shown anything contradicting or discourse of my statements that show factual truths about history and time keeping origin.

History is irrelevant  according to you, yet all our knowledge comes from history and the past scientists.

Time came before science and was accepted without contradiction by science.




« Last Edit: 11/03/2015 23:56:24 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #17 on: 11/03/2015 23:50:39 »
but in order for people to spend time answering your posts, you need to start making sense.

And listening to those who are trying to help!

This thread is my thread and is discussing a theory from myself, in none of my posts do I say I require any help in the present available information I am disputing.

I am disputing the present information is incorrect, I will not accept present information unless showed just cause, you saying it does not prove my science to be false, my statements are quite falsifiable.

P.s it is I trying to help you

« Last Edit: 11/03/2015 23:57:41 by Thebox »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #18 on: 12/03/2015 00:00:06 »


This thread is my thread and is discussing a theory from myself, in none of my posts do I say I require any help in the present available information I am disputing.


You may or may not request any help but don't expect us to just sit by and be force feed crackpot theories. Whether you've requested it or not, we have the right to disagree and explain why. To date, several members have tried to enlighten you about your misconceptions but to no avail. Don't count on any of us to just lay down and take what you say as science fact.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #19 on: 12/03/2015 00:02:27 »


A Sundial is not measuring time, it is measuring the relative movement of the shadow compared to the Suns position in the sky.

A sundial or using any form of motion to measure time is not measuring time but simply measuring relative timing of motion.  A synchronization of timing of motion.

Yes. This (above) makes perfect sense to me. Because the Earth rotates at a (fairly) constant rate this rotation can be used as a way of measuring time (one full rotation is a day, any other duration can be measured as a fraction or multiple of that rotation)

The absolute speed of the rotation is irrelevant, it is the frequency that matters (in this case, one revolution per day). For example, the 462 m/s "speed of the Earth is rotating at" is only accurate near the equator. Near the North or South pole, the day is just as long (just under 24 hours), but the distance traveled is much smaller (you can demonstrate this to yourself with a globe if it doesn't make sense at first).

Also, I will point out that the Earth is slowing down. On average, the day is getting longer by about 2.3 ms every century. This does not have any fundamental implications on the definitions of time or space, it only means that the Earth is slowing down.


When light speed was found, the scientist were under the perceived impression of time.   

299792458 m/s   , a second based on a distance. 
How can that be accurate?

it reads c=299792458 m  per  462.69 m

Again, you are confusing time and space. 462.69 meters cannot be equal to any amount of time just as there is no number of dolphins equal to a rat. A car traveling at 5 meters per second does not imply that 5 = 462.69 just as a photon traveling at 299792458 meters per second does not imply that 299792458 = 462.69. This apparent paradox doesn't mean that our measurement of time is completely wrong, it means that yours is.

in summary:
seconds ≠ meters
dolphins ≠ rats
speed has units of meters per second, or miles per hour, or feet per minute, or whatever unit of length per unit time you want to use. There is nothing special about the "speed of Earth's rotation"
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #20 on: 12/03/2015 00:05:21 »


This thread is my thread and is discussing a theory from myself, in none of my posts do I say I require any help in the present available information I am disputing.


You may or may not request any help but don't expect us to just sit by and be force feed crackpot theories. Whether you've requested it or not, we have the right to disagree and explain why. To date, several members have tried to enlighten you about your misconceptions but to no avail. Don't count on any of us to just lay down and take what you say as science fact.

Please point out were members have talked about any of my points, quoted back present information is not discussing.

I await your first scientific post of the thread, I will not answer any more to flame attempts from my ex -forums members.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #21 on: 12/03/2015 00:09:08 »

Please point out were members have talked about any of my points, quoted back present information is not discussing.

I await your first scientific post of the thread, I will not answer any more to flame attempts from my ex -forums members.
Check out the latest post #19. This member has some interesting points you should consider.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #22 on: 12/03/2015 00:09:35 »


A Sundial is not measuring time, it is measuring the relative movement of the shadow compared to the Suns position in the sky.

A sundial or using any form of motion to measure time is not measuring time but simply measuring relative timing of motion.  A synchronization of timing of motion.

Yes. This (above) makes perfect sense to me. Because the Earth rotates at a (fairly) constant rate this rotation can be used as a way of measuring time (one full rotation is a day, any other duration can be measured as a fraction or multiple of that rotation)

The absolute speed of the rotation is irrelevant, it is the frequency that matters (in this case, one revolution per day). For example, the 462 m/s "speed of the Earth is rotating at" is only accurate near the equator. Near the North or South pole, the day is just as long (just under 24 hours), but the distance traveled is much smaller (you can demonstrate this to yourself with a globe if it doesn't make sense at first).

Also, I will point out that the Earth is slowing down. On average, the day is getting longer by about 2.3 ms every century. This does not have any fundamental implications on the definitions of time or space, it only means that the Earth is slowing down.


When light speed was found, the scientist were under the perceived impression of time.   

299792458 m/s   , a second based on a distance. 
How can that be accurate?

it reads c=299792458 m  per  462.69 m

Again, you are confusing time and space. 462.69 meters cannot be equal to any amount of time just as there is no number of dolphins equal to a rat. A car traveling at 5 meters per second does not imply that 5 = 462.69 just as a photon traveling at 299792458 meters per second does not imply that 299792458 = 462.69. This apparent paradox doesn't mean that our measurement of time is completely wrong, it means that yours is.

in summary:
seconds ≠ meters
dolphins ≠ rats
speed has units of meters per second, or miles per hour, or feet per minute, or whatever unit of length per unit time you want to use. There is nothing special about the "speed of Earth's rotation"

In your first paragraph you have just completely agreed with me.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #23 on: 12/03/2015 00:11:38 »
I completely agreed with part of what you said. I accept your telling of history, but I disagree with your conclusion.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #24 on: 12/03/2015 00:12:46 »


In your first paragraph you have just completely agreed with me.
I think you need to read all of his post, you will find several things which do not agree.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Time
« Reply #24 on: 12/03/2015 00:12:46 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length