The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?  (Read 3826 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
as title...enough said

added - I have  had enough of religion , sorry I mean science , trying to lie to me.

A swiss clock measures time

A Caesium clock measures time

Prediction is plotted paths and inevitable


Sam travels a distance and records their travel time, half way through the journey the clock breaks and there is no hrtz per second of the clock, Sam instantly freezes in time and the whole Universe stops, time stands still for Sam because the rate of his clock was now zero hrtz

However poor old sam was in luck, both him and the clock were travelling through space time, and space time did not care about sam or his busted clock. Sams spaceship continued as normal in time.  Even though the clock had stopped, Newtons laws was of motion prevailed and with no acting external forces, Sam continued at his velocity.  However when Sam arrived at his destination he realised something, that motion relative to gravity affected the synchronising of his clock to gravity, and realised gravity was out of synch to the clock.
  Sams force normal was a constant a=9.82m/s in a stationary inertial reference frame, Sam realised the constant changes with motion.

Sam knew some science, so by elementary thinking Sam did some home work and discovered thermodynamics, Sam realised the ground in the stationary inertial reference frame was extracting energy from the clock.  Sam recognises that when the clock is in motion the extraction rate changes.


Sam realises that when the clock is in motion this extraction rate is slowed down and therefore noticed the clock slowed down its emittance to the extraction.

Sam thought to himself, how can I show the world this in physical terms, so he thought,  suck  hard on a straw or suck soft, the rate of extraction changes.

P.s How many ways must I try to explain before we start a serious conversation about the idea without quoting back this is wrong  because GR and SR says so?


I will keep trying and trying until somebody in the world finally listens to what I have to say, I may use a lot of generalised things but I have valued premise for discussion on present science,

Please discuss and do not remove AGAIN, it is not a new theory , it is pointing out a few things about present information.

I do not know I am asking not telling, ok?

Can we start with this ?


Something used to measure/record time is not time itself, so any fault in the time measuring device can not affect time in any sense?












« Last Edit: 04/02/2016 10:53:20 by Thebox »


 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
Never.
It is only you that is making that claim.
The world doesn't think anything of the sort.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
Never.
It is only you that is making that claim.
The world doesn't think anything of the sort.

That is strange, because the world says that time dilates and it is proven because the clocks show different rates, therefore saying that time is this clock and if the clock alters , time alters.

Are you saying the world does not say this?

So if you personally do not think that a clock is time itself, why on Earth would you think the rate of the clock can affect time itself?



« Last Edit: 04/02/2016 13:10:04 by Thebox »
 

Online chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
The mistake is your own. Clocks are an easy way to measure time--but only you are saying that they are time.

Talking about clocks slowing down and speeding up is just an easy way to discuss time dilation. No one thinks that time gets slowed down when the batteries run down in their watches. The fact is that when an observer in a different frame of reference observes a clock slowing down, everything slows down. It turns out that our models make much more sense when we allow for time to run at different rates for different frames of reference, and things get very confusing and contradictory if we try to establish a universal timescale.
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Clocks cycle and repeat; twice a day it is 12 o'clock. However, the flow of time does not cycle or repeat. The human life does not cycle back to childhood like the clock. When we build a house it does not become new every so many years. This will happen only in the religious concept of reincarnation.

Time moves forward in a line, We get older and our bodies continue to change each day. We don't cycle or repeat ver time. Clocks, including, atomic cycle are sine waves not lines. The time line and the clock sine wave are not the same thing. When clocks run slows due to relativity, the sine wave changes.

Energy, which is used to run clocks, are expressed as sine waves. Energy quanta like photons, are defined by both time and distance; frequency and wavelength, and not just time. The sine wave misrepresents time, since time is 1-D, while the sine wave is 2-D and includes distance.

The question is when did human begin to misrepresent the 1-D time line with a 2-D sine wave? It had to do with the human invention of gears and machines. Once humans could contrive something, not natural to the earth, they used this artificial to represent a 1-D natural thing in 2-D.

What was the purpose of adding another dimension to time, via the way time is measured and represented? It was an attempt to control time; 9 to 5 cycle, that repeat each day. Time used to normally flow to the future, with each day, new. This is good for natural living and nature, but civilization needed to control time. They had to add the human touch.

This man made tradition is still being used to misrepresent time. Clocks use energy, which is wavelength and frequency; time and distance, to represent time. If you put time on the X-axis and distance on the y-axis, and assume both are equal; space-time, the forces create a circle; clock face.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
Never.
It is only you that is making that claim.
The world doesn't think anything of the sort.
Exactly.......................Talk about a one track mind!
« Last Edit: 04/02/2016 15:36:17 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Ancient man could tell the time by noting the position of the sun, or the stars. When the sun was overhead, it was twelve noon. Notice that in  these examples, time is being represented by position. If we plotted; graphed, the position of the sun, all day long, we can use this to define a time interval based on any change of position from point A to point B. In this case, time is being equated to velocity; movement in space over time. We are using a 2-D clock; time and distance, to approximate time, with time only 1-D.

If you look space-time as (x,y,z,t) time is never implied to be 2-D, yet we express time this way with clocks, with energy and with atomic cycles.  This may seem trivial but it impacts all of science.

Time does not require distance. The approximation that uses distance and waves, is manmade. It is done this was for convenience, since it is easier to see position or change of position, since can't see time. Man has added a conceptual crutch; distance to represent time. This tradition is still in effect.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Time is what separates sequential events. Clocks are what we use to measure it.

Distance is what separates points in space. We use tape measures and suchlike to measure it.

Nobody (apart from Mr Box, it seems) confuses a dimension with the means of measuring it.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Huh?  Not once have I confused a clock for being time itself, it is all you and science who insist that a slowing down of the clock affects time, puppy has rightfully so pointed out the error.. 

Let us take Alan's statement

''Time is what separates sequential events. Clocks are what we use to measure it.''


Exactly clocks are what we use to measure time, saying a clock slowing down affects what we are  measuring is in comparison to saying a shorter tape measure affects the distance we are measuring.


Let us take Chiral's post

''The mistake is your own. Clocks are an easy way to measure time--but only you are saying that they are time.''''

Incorrect, science says clocks are time, they insist on a time dilation by a change in rate of the clock. It is not I who insist that time slows down because the clock rate is not constant.  I insist your clock is broken .









 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: TheBox
What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
It was at least several hundred BC.
I tried unsuccessfully to find out who said it, but I recall that an ancient Greek philosopher said something like: "Curse the man who divided the day into such small pieces".

This was after someone put a sundial in his building, dividing the day into hours.
This altered his perception of time.

But here we are talking about psychological or perceptual time, not the scientific use of time.

Quote
it is you and science who insist that a slowing down of the clock affects time,
This is confusing cause & effect.
Science says that the clock slowing down is an effect of time going slower, not the cause of time going slower.

Quote
Something used to measure/record time is not time itself, so any fault in the time measuring device can not affect time in any sense?
I agree. A broken clock does not stop time.

But this presumes that the clock is something external to Sam. It also assumes that even though the clock may be part of Sam's spaceship, it is possible for the clock to stop, but the spaceship continues moving through space-time.

The fact that Sam's clock ran slow (as seen by a distant observer, before it broke completely), is merely a symptom that Sam's whole life is running slow (as seen by a distant observer). The clock does not cause Sam to age more slowly, but is merely a symptom of the fact that Sam and his spacecraft and its clock are all in the same inertial frame, and people in a different inertial frames will see time traveling at different rates (even though everything inside the spacecraft looks perfectly normal to Sam).

This statement is due to a limited understanding of a "clock" as an external physical device. But every atom and molecule of Sam's body is a clock, and every atom of his spacecraft is a clock:
- Any radioactive element decays at a certain rate, regardless of whether it is carbon 14 or uranium 238. This is an atomic clock.
- Every element and every compound absorbs and emits photons of certain specific frequencies. This represents a spectroscopic clock.
- Every chemical group has certain vibrations at specific frequencies. This is a (micro)mechanical clock.
- Every chemical reaction occurs at a certain rate, depending on temperature & concentration. This is a chemical clock.
- Nerve impulses travel at a certain speed. This is a neural clock.
- Every living thing ages at a certain rate. This is a biological clock.

So even though Sam's wall clock has broken, as he plunges near a black hole, or travels onward at near the speed of light, it will seem to distant observers on Earth that the light in his cabin is red-shifted more than Doppler can explain, his nuclear reactor is lasting longer than the same reactor on Earth, and that Sam himself is aging slower than his twin brother on Earth. Meanwhile, everything inside the spacecraft seems perfectly fine to Sam - except that his twin brother on Earth seems to be aging slightly slower than Sam (hence the famous twin paradox).

Today we don't have spaceships that can travel at relativistic speeds, but we do have access to particle accelerators and cosmic rays that generate unstable particles traveling at relativistic speeds, and we can measure the average lifetime of these particles - and we do see time dilation, because even subatomic particles are a clock. And we do have some very stable atomic clocks that can tell the difference in the rate of time between two adjacent floors of the same building.

Quote
Please discuss and do not remove AGAIN, it is not a new theory
I agree. It is not a new theory. It is a broken understanding of an established theory.
IMHO, after suitable discussion, it should be put out with other broken things.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: TheBox
What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
It was at least several hundred BC.
I tried unsuccessfully to find out who said it, but I recall that an ancient Greek philosopher said something like: "Curse the man who divided the day into such small pieces".

This was after someone put a sundial in his building, dividing the day into hours.
This altered his perception of time.

But here we are talking about psychological or perceptual time, not the scientific use of time.

Quote
it is you and science who insist that a slowing down of the clock affects time,
This is confusing cause & effect.
Science says that the clock slowing down is an effect of time going slower, not the cause of time going slower.

Quote
Something used to measure/record time is not time itself, so any fault in the time measuring device can not affect time in any sense?
I agree. A broken clock does not stop time.

But this presumes that the clock is something external to Sam. It also assumes that even though the clock may be part of Sam's spaceship, it is possible for the clock to stop, but the spaceship continues moving through space-time.

The fact that Sam's clock ran slow (as seen by a distant observer, before it broke completely), is merely a symptom that Sam's whole life is running slow (as seen by a distant observer). The clock does not cause Sam to age more slowly, but is merely a symptom of the fact that Sam and his spacecraft and its clock are all in the same inertial frame, and people in a different inertial frames will see time traveling at different rates (even though everything inside the spacecraft looks perfectly normal to Sam).

This statement is due to a limited understanding of a "clock" as an external physical device. But every atom and molecule of Sam's body is a clock, and every atom of his spacecraft is a clock:
- Any radioactive element decays at a certain rate, regardless of whether it is carbon 14 or uranium 238. This is an atomic clock.
- Every element and every compound absorbs and emits photons of certain specific frequencies. This represents a spectroscopic clock.
- Every chemical group has certain vibrations at specific frequencies. This is a (micro)mechanical clock.
- Every chemical reaction occurs at a certain rate, depending on temperature & concentration. This is a chemical clock.
- Nerve impulses travel at a certain speed. This is a neural clock.
- Every living thing ages at a certain rate. This is a biological clock.

So even though Sam's wall clock has broken, as he plunges near a black hole, or travels onward at near the speed of light, it will seem to distant observers on Earth that the light in his cabin is red-shifted more than Doppler can explain, his nuclear reactor is lasting longer than the same reactor on Earth, and that Sam himself is aging slower than his twin brother on Earth. Meanwhile, everything inside the spacecraft seems perfectly fine to Sam - except that his twin brother on Earth seems to be aging slightly slower than Sam (hence the famous twin paradox).

Today we don't have spaceships that can travel at relativistic speeds, but we do have access to particle accelerators and cosmic rays that generate unstable particles traveling at relativistic speeds, and we can measure the average lifetime of these particles - and we do see time dilation, because even subatomic particles are a clock. And we do have some very stable atomic clocks that can tell the difference in the rate of time between two adjacent floors of the same building.

Quote
Please discuss and do not remove AGAIN, it is not a new theory
I agree. It is not a new theory. It is a broken understanding of an established theory.
IMHO, after suitable discussion, it should be put out with other broken things.
A good post , thank you for your reply, and I do understand what things such has a mechanical clock or a biological clock.  However ,


''I agree. A broken clock does not stop time.''

Then you must also agree that a broken clock can not change time or effect time, and you must also agree that a change in a rate of any clock does not change or affect time.


The mistake is not mine, I think science forgets that the Caesium clock, mechanical clcoks, biological clocks all exist in ''time''. I am not arguing that biological decay may have a different rate, I am arguing that time itself does not dilate , there is no time travel, there is no going into the past, or travelling into the future, biological decay would hapen regardless of time not existing.   Space has this unique ability of being immortal and never decaying, the time value is zero and remains zero.

It is timeless without bodies.





 

Online chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
If there is a collection of "clocks" that all operate by different mechanisms, as described by Evan (hourglass, pendulum clock, quartz oscillator, cesium atomic clock, nuclear decay clock, light clock, chemical clock, biological clock etc.), and all of them appear to slow by exactly the same magnitude, isn't the simplest explanation that the local time has slowed by that factor? What else could possibly slow down light and change the vibrational frequency of a crystal and change biological process speed and change gravity and change spring constants and change the decay rate of radioisotopes etc. etc. etc.?

I'm not saying that it is impossible for some other mechanism to be taking place, but it would have to be something very weird--even weirder than time changing.

And this is not purely abstract and theoretical. We have observed time dilation due to relativistic speeds. And we have observed time dilation due to gravitational fields.

Time dilation is a weird and tricky concept, and is definitely counterintuitive. But just because it doesn't make sense doesn't make it wrong.

Please, please, please. Take a minute, or a day--and try to understand what we are saying.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Then you must also agree that a broken clock can not change time or effect time, and you must also agree that a change in a rate of any clock does not change or affect time.
What you don't seem to understand, or refuse to believe even though it has been said to you in every way imaginable, is that everyone does agree that the above statement is true.
No one, and I mean absolutely no one that I have ever come across except you makes such a preposterous claim that science believes such a ridiculous thing.
Try and get that through the fog that seems to comprise your understanding. And stop telling yourself and us lies about what we and science believe.
A change in a rate of any clock does not change or effect time. FACT. We all 100% agree with that statement.

A change in the rate of time does change and effect a perfectly functioning clock as well as every other definition of time. That is what you don't seem to be capable of understanding.
Now I have been able to make primary school children understand this concept, and I have been able to make an 85 year old great great grandmother understand this concept. From what I have seen go down on this forum I don't believe you are capable for whatever reason of ever understanding.
Everyone has very patiently tried again and again to explain it to you and yet you keep coming back with the false claim about what we and the world believes according to you.
Let go. It is not true.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2016 21:44:22 by Space Flow »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile


A change in the rate of time does change and effect a perfectly functioning clock as well as every other definition of time.

Just no, honestly you are all looking at this ''backwards''.  a change in rate of time does not happen. What you observe with the clocks is a change in timing, the two being very different things.

Timing something is not time, while your clocks travel out of synch , time remains synchronised and simulataneoues to every event.

 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
If there is a collection of "clocks" that all operate by different mechanisms, as described by Evan (hourglass, pendulum clock, quartz oscillator, cesium atomic clock, nuclear decay clock, light clock, chemical clock, biological clock etc.), and all of them appear to slow by exactly the same magnitude, isn't the simplest explanation that the local time has slowed by that factor? What else could possibly slow down light and change the vibrational frequency of a crystal and change biological process speed and change gravity and change spring constants and change the decay rate of radioisotopes etc. etc. etc.?

I'm not saying that it is impossible for some other mechanism to be taking place, but it would have to be something very weird--even weirder than time changing.

And this is not purely abstract and theoretical. We have observed time dilation due to relativistic speeds. And we have observed time dilation due to gravitational fields.

Time dilation is a weird and tricky concept, and is definitely counterintuitive. But just because it doesn't make sense doesn't make it wrong.

Please, please, please. Take a minute, or a day--and try to understand what we are saying.

I already understand time-dilation, I already understand what you are saying, I can not remember which forum is what , I did mention that the ground sucks the life out of you.

'', isn't the simplest explanation that the local time has slowed by that factor?''

The simple explantion is that the clocks can never be quite as constant as time.



 

Online chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile

The simple explantion is that the clocks can never be quite as constant as time.

And all of the phenomena just happen to be inconsistent in the exact same way? Remember we are not just talking about devices as clocks, we are also talking about natural processes like nuclear decay and light frequencies...
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile

The simple explantion is that the clocks can never be quite as constant as time.

And all of the phenomena just happen to be inconsistent in the exact same way? Remember we are not just talking about devices as clocks, we are also talking about natural processes like nuclear decay and light frequencies...


All effects we record, we observe, we even experience, but all of this needs no time to happen in , it only needs space. The value of time in space is zero



Consider Earths path,


→→→earth


there is no history left behind we were ever in the space behind us.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2016 22:45:36 by Thebox »
 

Online chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile

The simple explantion is that the clocks can never be quite as constant as time.

And all of the phenomena just happen to be inconsistent in the exact same way? Remember we are not just talking about devices as clocks, we are also talking about natural processes like nuclear decay and light frequencies...


All effects we record, we observe, we even experience, but all of this needs no time to happen in , it only needs space. The value of time in space is zero



Consider Earths path,


→→→earth


there is no history left behind we were ever in the space behind us.

Now you're just being silly.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
 

Online chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Now you're just being silly.
Now?

Well, if he thinks there is only now, always now and forever now, yes...
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Well, if he thinks there is only now, always now and forever now, yes...
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile

 and you must also agree that a change in a rate of any clock does not change or affect time.

We all agree that clocks have no effect on the passage of time Mr. Box. What we and every other scientist is saying is: "it is the change in the passage of TIME that changes the clock." Clocks only register the rate, it is the rate that changes due to the influence of speed and or gravitation.

It is you who have it all backwards and until you get off your high horse and for once give this phenomenon some serious consideration, nobody here will cease reminding you about how WRONG you really are!
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Incorrect, science says clocks are time, they insist on a time dilation by a change in rate of the clock.

No. Nobody "insists" on it, we measure it. And to nobody's surprise but yours, the result is exactly as Einstein predicted.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Incorrect, science says clocks are time, they insist on a time dilation by a change in rate of the clock.

No. Nobody "insists" on it, we measure it. And to nobody's surprise but yours, the result is exactly as Einstein predicted.

You do not measure anything, you have things you use to say a time, you do not and can not measure time. If you insist you measure time, then show me where I can see this time?  I want to measure it also.

Things that can be measured generally have a dimension, physical shape and structure.  You might as well as say there is a god and give up. Time is in comparison to a God, they do not physically exist either, so if you all insist time exists then you insist god exists and religion is correct and science is wrong.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2016 08:57:35 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile

"it is the change in the passage of TIME that changes the clock."


No its not, a change in gravitational state and motion  changes the clocks, bugger all to do with time.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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