# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?  (Read 3839 times)

#### puppypower

• Hero Member
• Posts: 555
• Thanked: 43 times
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #25 on: 05/02/2016 13:36:24 »
If space-time is integrated, do the clocks that slow, also get thinner and shorter? In other words, if space-time is integrated and relativity says time slows and distance contracts, why does only time leave a permanent change in the clock? Why is distance or size reversible? In the twin paradox, one twin comes back younger, but not shorter and thinner? Why is that if space-time is integrated?

The ancients could measure time with the position of the sun. If we used this clock, reversible distance is used measure and express a time variable that is not reversible. A modern clock will use cycles/sine waves; atomic clock. The sine wave is based on wavelength and frequency. But in terms of the clock and relativity, the wavelength/distance is reversible, but the frequency changes.

Think of this. The product of the wavelength and frequency is proportional to the speed of light. If the wavelength stays the same but the frequency changes, does the speed of light change? (as an unwritten assumption).

Entropy is a closer concept to time than is a cyclic clock; atomic vibrations. Entropy only spontaneously goes in one direction via the second law. An example of an entropy clock might be the dead fish clock. With this clock we take a fresh fish and place it on the counter at 25C. We measure how long it takes to smell bad at 10 meters. Like the flow of time, the fish does not cycle not can it go backwards. We cannot un-stink the fish at midnight. Entropy continues forward never going back to the beginning. I like a clock that is numbered from 1 to infinity and not 1 to 12.

If this fish clock slows, such as via refrigeration, the fish does not get any smaller or thinner. All that happens is the rate of entropy change slows. The dead fish clock may not reliable for accurate and reproducible time, because the fish clock will be slightly different for each fish.

If we use the dead fish clock, you may come and go to work at different times each day because you are not cycling between two specific entropy states. Rather the state of entropy is always new and slightly different; fish, and building from there. This is not good for business, who prefers more control over you time, even of it can change the connection between time, distance and the speed of light.

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1277
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #26 on: 05/02/2016 13:54:27 »

You do not measure anything, you have things you use to say a time, you do not and can not measure time.
Wrong.................
Quote from: Thebox
Things that can be measured generally have a dimension, physical shape and structure.
Time is the fourth dimension................

Quote from: Thebox
You might as well as say there is a god and give up.
What? Abandon all the scientific information we have collected over the years just because you say so???????????????  "NOT"

Quote from: Thebox
Time is in comparison to a God,
By who's definition??

Quote from: Thebox
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.
No one here has said anything about religion with one exception of course, that being yourself. And BTW, it has always been you that has insisted that science is wrong Mr. Box.

« Last Edit: 05/02/2016 14:03:57 by Ethos_ »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4704
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #27 on: 05/02/2016 16:54:44 »
Things that can be measured generally have a dimension,
Time is a dimension. Like mass and length. That is set out in "Physics 101", without which you will never understand what the rest of us are takling about.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3917
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #28 on: 05/02/2016 17:19:11 »
Thebox, please read the following before you continue. Otherwise you will make no progress in your efforts to converse with the scientific community.

http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age16-19/General/text/Dimensions_/index.html

I personally would like to see you progress. I hope you don't let me down.

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1277
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #29 on: 05/02/2016 17:30:33 »
Thebox, please read the following before you continue. Otherwise you will make no progress in your efforts to converse with the scientific community.

http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age16-19/General/text/Dimensions_/index.html

I personally would like to see you progress. I hope you don't let me down.
I was also willing and eager to see some development in this member but after multiple attempts and frequent efforts aimed at that goal, I've become very pessimistic about any success concerning that eventuality. If I were you Jeff, I wouldn't be holding my breath.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2016 17:32:53 by Ethos_ »

#### Phractality

• Hero Member
• Posts: 523
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #30 on: 05/02/2016 18:17:26 »
Time is change. Some changes are cyclical. Is a cycle a piece of time? Or is it a measure of time? Let's not get all upset over such a trivial question.

The "second", since Babylonian times, was defined as 1/84,600 of an average solar day. If a day is a piece of time, then a second is, or was, a smaller piece of time.

Attempts to measure such small pieces of time involved a long succession of inventions, intended to count those pieces of time more accurately and repeatably. Sometime in the early 20th Century, the most accurate and repeatable measurements of seconds came from clocks which agree with each other to a greater degree than they agree with the rotation of the our planet. It turns out that our initial choice of a standard clock had its own idiosyncrasies. For science to progress in both particle physics and astronomy, we need a more stable standard of time than the rotation of Mother Earth... beg you pardon, ma'am.

The new standard had to be something that can be, theoretically, duplicated anywhere in the universe, and preferably anytime in the universe, and preferably not too difficult or expensive to reproduce in a low-budget lab, or even on a person's wrist.

After a period of competition among various types of clocks, the Cesium standard was chosen as the new definition of the second. As of 1960, Mother Earth's daily pirouette was in exact lock step with the official world clock. Several times since then, the world clock has been skip-stepped ahead by a second, acknowledging that a certain year contained 84,601 seconds, by the new definition of second.

By the way, the meter was also redefined by the Cesium standard. It used to be 1/40,000 of the polar circumference of Mother Earth at sea level. So what happens to the meter when sea level rises?

The speed of light, measured in meters/second, is the number of meters that light travels in one second. The most accurate measures of the speed of light by the old standard were applied to the new standard, so they were in agreement in 1960.

So to answer the title question, the year was 1960, but I believe you are misrepresenting the meaning of the cesium standard. It redefined meters, seconds and the speed of light. If you measure anything in meters and seconds, you are counting cycles of a cesium clock; if you are not using a cesium clock, then you may not get the correct number of meters and seconds.

We should try not to argue in terms that have universally accepted definitions which we either don't know or choose to ignore. If I don't accept the universally accepted definitions of certain terms, then I should introduce my own original terms; those I may define as I please.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4704
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #31 on: 06/02/2016 00:49:27 »
Time is change.
No, it is the separation between sequential events. "Change" is not a dimension.

Quote
Some changes are cyclical. Is a cycle a piece of time? Or is it a measure of time? Let's not get all upset over such a trivial question.
It's very far from trivial, and the cause of all Mr Box's misunderstandings.

#### Space Flow

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 400
• Thanked: 31 times
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #32 on: 06/02/2016 09:23:34 »
Time is simply cause and effect. It is causation and the rate is extremely relative. Even within the confines of a human body. Because it is energy sensitive it can and does run at different rates in different parts of the one body.
What we experience as the flow of time personally is an average of all the different processes within us. It is even true that our brain in normal un-pressured situations operates with a time delay buffer to allow all the input time to integrate before presenting it to our consciousness.
Time is an accumulated causation wave limited in speed by the speed of light being the information interchange mechanism, and running at various rates even at a quantum level.
Any system larger than described at quantum level is an average of all these quantum time differences.
Time is therefore anything but a constant anywhere on any level.
Unfortunately exactly the opposite of what "Thebox" so strongly believes.
I have seen how many attempts were made to change his understanding of the way things work and I think the members of this forum should be congratulated on the effort you all put in.
Allas, it is always extremely hard to change a belief.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3157
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #33 on: 06/02/2016 09:29:20 »
Oh of course, how silly of me , why didn't I think to read the bible of Wiki, of course then I would know time was one of the 4 dimensions, I have seen the light , I accept it all because you all say say and the wiki bible says so.  No point arguing with religion, I mean science.  This is not a discussion, it is a hung drawn and quartering of the bad witch, you are not trying to convince me about time, you are trying to convince the audience of viewers, the ones who are kept working 9-5 to keep the rich rich.

Science is full of crap and all those who support this crap are just robots.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3157
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #34 on: 06/02/2016 09:37:02 »
Things that can be measured generally have a dimension,
Time is a dimension. Like mass and length. That is set out in "Physics 101", without which you will never understand what the rest of us are takling about.

There is now 5 dimensions?  you have included mass.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3157
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #35 on: 06/02/2016 09:38:24 »
Thebox, please read the following before you continue. Otherwise you will make no progress in your efforts to converse with the scientific community.

http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age16-19/General/text/Dimensions_/index.html

I personally would like to see you progress. I hope you don't let me down.

I already know mate what  dimensions are....

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3157
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #36 on: 06/02/2016 09:40:56 »
Thebox, please read the following before you continue. Otherwise you will make no progress in your efforts to converse with the scientific community.

http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age16-19/General/text/Dimensions_/index.html

I personally would like to see you progress. I hope you don't let me down.
I was also willing and eager to see some development in this member but after multiple attempts and frequent efforts aimed at that goal, I've become very pessimistic about any success concerning that eventuality. If I were you Jeff, I wouldn't be holding my breath.

Blatant arrogance, progress?  what you  mean is you want me to accept all your science to be fact,

I know very well what time is said to be and know very well what it isn't.

I know very well XYZ and t the four dimensions single interwoven manifold.

Pfff for the love of god, as they say.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3157
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #37 on: 06/02/2016 09:43:46 »

You do not measure anything, you have things you use to say a time, you do not and can not measure time.
Wrong.................
Quote from: Thebox
Things that can be measured generally have a dimension, physical shape and structure.
Time is the fourth dimension................

Quote from: Thebox
You might as well as say there is a god and give up.
What? Abandon all the scientific information we have collected over the years just because you say so???????????????  "NOT"

Quote from: Thebox
Time is in comparison to a God,
By who's definition??

Quote from: Thebox
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.
No one here has said anything about religion with one exception of course, that being yourself. And BTW, it has always been you that has insisted that science is wrong Mr. Box.

Time is not a  physical thing, neither is god, that is the comparison.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3157
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #38 on: 06/02/2016 09:47:24 »
State 1-Time is an abstract creation by mankind to synchronise their everyday activities that originated by the conscious thought of death.
1.1- This state of time is originally denoted by the relative movement of the earth’s spin relative to the motion of the sun. We nowadays use clocks to represent the twenty four hours or so of rotation relative to the two bodies, An invention of a measurement that would go on to synchronise our every day activities and to aid in the scaling of space and the measurement of speed and such.  A measurement based on a degree of motion /distance or frequency rate.
1.2-A sun dial works by a degree of movement of the shadow,a clock works by a degree of movement of the fingers, a caesium clock uses a cycle rate equal to one second that is equal to a degree of motion.
1.3-  This abstract  time = distance/motion/frequency, this is presently how we record and measure time.
1.4 - Needed are point values of {A,B} where A≡B which holds true if A||B which holds true when A≡B≡C which holds true if A||B ||C holds true.

The earth's circumference at the equator is ~ 24,901 miles

One degree of this    24901/360 ~ 69 miles

The time it takes for the earth to spin one degree is ~ 240 seconds

69/240~0.2875 miles per second

In one hour there is 3600.s

0.2875*3600~1035 mph

0.2875 mile =  9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation at ground state = 1 second

A≡B≡C

State 2-Time is virtual representation of the dimension of the whole of space and virtual vectors of space.(Minkowskis space-time)
2.1– This state of time is a virtual representation of estimation, I.e we can calculate a journey of one mile will take one hour to travel at a  constant speed of  1 mph.   Minkowskis created space-time , virtual representations of dimensions of space to represent virtual journey paths through space that have not yet taken place.
2.2-Space-time existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence, a virtual representation of vectors existing only in the imagination of the observer to represent spacial distance and the path that a moving object follows through space as a function of time synchronised to the observers relationship or expression involving one or more variables.
2.3-Four dimensions of X,Y and Z and a time linearity, interwoven into a single manifold to virtually represent how long a spacial journey would take an observer to travel or to calculate an objects velocity and as likewise,  a three point geometric synchronisation using time to denote four-dimensional Minkowski space-time, ''a fundamental concept of the human mind structure human experience(Immanuel Kant)''.  Immanuel Kant also believed that time was neither an event or a thing and in-itself unmeasurable.
2.4-In part agreement with Kant, I believe time in space or of space can not exist and is unaccountable in any other sense than abstract and of the human imagination. In the representation of a void, the quantity of time becomes unmeasurable because there is no point to point values of {A,B} where A≡B holds true and A||B holds true.

State two of time is dependent to state one of abstract time, without state one , state two cannot exist.

Humans , the very need for time, the very thought of time, something we look for outside of ourselves in hope.

In considering  state one and state two of time, then in a sense of realising the actual specifics of the abstract states, I then considered what real time/absolute time is, and turned my attention towards the Caesium atom and the frequency rate.   Although the rate of the Caesium atom was defined to equal an old second denoted by a degree of motion, I could see some significance in time dilation/gravitational time dilation, that gave me a line of enquiries and queries to follow.  The present measurement of time and consideration for time is Minkowski space-time, a belief that time is independent of the observer, a belief that the measuring device of time is measuring a time outside of ourselves, which lead me to having an interesting thought of the movement of a clock finger.  Whilst observing a  degree of movement of a clock finger, respectively measuring an increment of degree equal to an increment of time, what really am I observing?, Am I observing the clock recording its own time?  Am I observing the clock recording an independent time?   or am I really observing my own time observing the clock?

Well it just so happens, at a ground state in a stationary initial reference frame, I am observing my time , the clocks time, and a said independent time all in a moment that is an equal rate. (A) the clock finger , (B) myself and (C) a said independent time , A||B ||C, which means (A) is parallel to (B) and parallel to (C).  I then considered would anything change if I placed an Atomic clock/Caesium atom, in my room, with myself, the clock, and the independent time.   9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation at ground state was equal to one second of my clock at ground state, so I observed my clock, myself, the said independent time, and imagined the Caesium atom clock (D).  I observed all the clocks were travelling parallel in synchronised time  A||B ||C||D at ground state.   This was an interesting thought but did still  not give me the answer to what real time/absolute time was.

In consideration of this , the path of investigation lead me to consider time dilation/gravitational time dilation.

''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

''According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly, as expressed by the Lorentz factor. This effect, called time dilation,''

According to time dilation and relativity , the basics are that  time slows down when things are moving in comparison to an observer at rest at ground state .  This was evidentially shown to be true by the Caesium atoms  9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation at ground state that was equal to one second, changing , producing a different rate  when in motion showing time slowed down by relative motion compared to a ground state rest mass. Of cause if one knows time can change, then one can also presume time travel is possible and likes.   Evidentially all must be known about time and Minkowski space-time and relativity must be correct.   That would be an assumption someone who was not curious would make and settle to be the answer.

The rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock, in considering this, something is just not quite right, I am at rest relative to my clock that is at rest, I already know that A||B ||C||D at ground state, so now I am going to consider (E) an atomic clock/caesium clock in motion in respect to the ground state of myself, my clock, my imaginary Caesium clock, and the said independent time.  {A||B ||C||D } is-not-parallel-imageE  which means E is not parallel to  A,B,C.D  and is independent of A,B,C,D.

According to Minkowski and Einstein, time is independent of matter and exists independently as a space-time,  but my simple thought experiment shows the atomic clock/Caesium atom is independent from the ground state times and space-time.  The effect of time rate slowing down  in this instance was only experienced dependently by the Clock in motion independent of any other mass or space.

This then leads me to what time actually is.

3-Absolute Time is the dependent rate of decay of independent physical bodies/particles. (such as the Caesium atom)

3.1- This state of time is all of concrete existence, a rate that remains constant if the observer remains stationary at a ground state in an initial reference frame and a constant of gravitational influence.  Motion stretches this time, a change in rate of time by displacement of the gravitational force constant having effect on frequency rate.

Principle rule 1 – All independent observers of time, independently occupy their own time frame.

Principle rule 2- State 1 and state 2 are dependent for all observers, where as state 3 is independent for all observers.

Do not try to bs me and convince the readers that I do not know what I am talking about, I never wrote state 4,
« Last Edit: 06/02/2016 09:52:16 by Thebox »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3157
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #39 on: 06/02/2016 10:35:30 »
Now I can write the forth and final state of time in several ways, I can write is and be biased towards religion and prove there is Gods's, notice plural, or I could write it up biased towards science proving science correct and there is no Gods, or I can ignore both paths and write in such a way it makes you all look incredibly stupid.

I am undecided at the moment, I may just not bother at all and leave you all to it.

P.s how long before the ban threats come,  because I will not comply and accept forced discipline?   I do not accept things that are illogical.
« Last Edit: 06/02/2016 10:48:10 by Thebox »

#### Space Flow

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 400
• Thanked: 31 times
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #40 on: 06/02/2016 11:50:59 »
Thebox.
Just wondering. Is this you?
« Last Edit: 06/02/2016 11:53:11 by Space Flow »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3157
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #41 on: 06/02/2016 12:29:30 »
Thebox.
Just wondering. Is this you?

No lol, but I am sure if he explained his terminology in full detail then maybe it would translate differently.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4704
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #42 on: 06/02/2016 14:21:05 »
Quote
State 1-Time is an abstract creation by mankind to synchronise their everyday activities that originated by the conscious thought of death.

If you insist on starting with an idiosyncratic definition, you won't find many scientists prepard to discuss the subject with you. Suppose you walked into a pub and said "football is the mating ritual of the lesser wallaby". Do you think you'd get much conversation from the locals?

Time is the dimension that separates sequential events. If you can't accept that very simple statement, you are wasting your life trying to discuss it with anyone else.

And don't hang about waiting to be banned. Ban youself by all means, but I don't think anyone else really cares that much.
« Last Edit: 06/02/2016 14:23:21 by alancalverd »

#### sam7

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 48
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #43 on: 06/02/2016 17:10:33 »
For his sake I hope that he is a 'troll'.

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1277
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #44 on: 06/02/2016 19:19:30 »
For his sake I hope that he is a 'troll'.
Absolutely,........better that Mr. Box is a troll than someone so deluded he dismisses the work of Einstein and so many other great scientific minds.

#### chiralSPO

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1873
• Thanked: 143 times
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #45 on: 06/02/2016 19:38:15 »
Dismissing the work of other scientists aside, just the misapplication of dimensions and arithmetic is shocking unless some trolling is involved.

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1277
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #46 on: 06/02/2016 20:32:06 »
Now I can write the forth and final state of time in several ways,
Four states of time you say?

Quote from: Thebox
I can write is and be biased towards religion and prove there is Gods's, notice plural,
OK, let's hear you prove that one Mr. Box.

Quote from: Thebox
I could write it up biased towards science proving science correct and there is no Gods, or I can ignore both paths and write in such a way it makes you all look incredibly stupid.
You're about to make us all look stupid are you? Frankly, there's only one fellow looking particularly stupid right now and you say we're all going to look stupid when you get through with us,.......Interesting!

Quote from: Thebox
I am undecided at the moment, I may just not bother at all and leave you all to it.
I'd recommend you take this course of action Mr. Box, it will save us all a great deal of grief.

Quote from: Thebox
P.s how long before the ban threats come,  because I will not comply and accept forced discipline?
Forcing you are we???
Quote from: Thebox
I do not accept things that are illogical.
Logical or illogical, all depends upon one's state of mind. When everyone else is logical and I find myself illogical, that might be cause for alarm.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3157
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #47 on: 07/02/2016 10:01:05 »

All science forums force people into acceptance, if I do not accept the threat will be a ban, all forums do this, even in speculation section, banter sections, hypothesis sections, new theories sections.  A forced discipline and using Mod power or member peer pressure.

All a bit weird really, very strange and cause for conspiracy theory. I do not even believe Mods have the power to agree if they knew I was correct, I do not believe science is even controlled by science, I am not even sure if some members are not apart of an higher organization to disuse the truth and dissuade the truth.

IT is weirds how nobody actually talks about the idea.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3157
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #48 on: 07/02/2016 10:31:02 »
State 1-Time is an abstract creation by mankind to synchronise their everyday activities that originated by the conscious thought of death.
1.1- This state of time is originally denoted by the relative movement of the earth’s spin relative to the motion of the sun. We nowadays use clocks to represent the twenty four hours or so of rotation relative to the two bodies, An invention of a measurement that would go on to synchronise our every day activities and to aid in the scaling of space and the measurement of speed and such.  A measurement based on a degree of motion /distance or frequency rate.
1.2-A sun dial works by a degree of movement of the shadow,a clock works by a degree of movement of the fingers, a caesium clock uses a cycle rate equal to one second that is equal to a degree of motion.
1.3-  This abstract  time = distance/motion/frequency, this is presently how we record and measure time.
1.4 - Needed are point values of {A,B} where A≡B which holds true if A||B which holds true when A≡B≡C which holds true if A||B ||C holds true.

The earth's circumference at the equator is ~ 24,901 miles

One degree of this    24901/360 ~ 69 miles

The time it takes for the earth to spin one degree is ~ 240 seconds

69/240~0.2875 miles per second

In one hour there is 3600.s

0.2875*3600~1035 mph

0.2875 mile =  9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation at ground state = 1 second

A≡B≡C

State 2-Time is virtual representation of the dimension of the whole of space and virtual vectors of space.(Minkowskis space-time)
2.1– This state of time is a virtual representation of estimation, I.e we can calculate a journey of one mile will take one hour to travel at a  constant speed of  1 mph.   Minkowskis created space-time , virtual representations of dimensions of space to represent virtual journey paths through space that have not yet taken place.
2.2-Space-time existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence, a virtual representation of vectors existing only in the imagination of the observer to represent spacial distance and the path that a moving object follows through space as a function of time synchronised to the observers relationship or expression involving one or more variables.
2.3-Four dimensions of X,Y and Z and a time linearity, interwoven into a single manifold to virtually represent how long a spacial journey would take an observer to travel or to calculate an objects velocity and as likewise,  a three point geometric synchronisation using time to denote four-dimensional Minkowski space-time, ''a fundamental concept of the human mind structure human experience(Immanuel Kant)''.  Immanuel Kant also believed that time was neither an event or a thing and in-itself unmeasurable.
2.4-In part agreement with Kant, I believe time in space or of space can not exist and is unaccountable in any other sense than abstract and of the human imagination. In the representation of a void, the quantity of time becomes unmeasurable because there is no point to point values of {A,B} where A≡B holds true and A||B holds true.

State two of time is dependent to state one of abstract time, without state one , state two cannot exist.

Humans , the very need for time, the very thought of time, something we look for outside of ourselves in hope.

In considering  state one and state two of time, then in a sense of realising the actual specifics of the abstract states, I then considered what real time/absolute time is, and turned my attention towards the Caesium atom and the frequency rate.   Although the rate of the Caesium atom was defined to equal an old second denoted by a degree of motion, I could see some significance in time dilation/gravitational time dilation, that gave me a line of enquiries and queries to follow.  The present measurement of time and consideration for time is Minkowski space-time, a belief that time is independent of the observer, a belief that the measuring device of time is measuring a time outside of ourselves, which lead me to having an interesting thought of the movement of a clock finger.  Whilst observing a  degree of movement of a clock finger, respectively measuring an increment of degree equal to an increment of time, what really am I observing?, Am I observing the clock recording its own time?  Am I observing the clock recording an independent time?   or am I really observing my own time observing the clock?

Well it just so happens, at a ground state in a stationary initial reference frame, I am observing my time , the clocks time, and a said independent time all in a moment that is an equal rate. (A) the clock finger , (B) myself and (C) a said independent time , A||B ||C, which means (A) is parallel to (B) and parallel to (C).  I then considered would anything change if I placed an Atomic clock/Caesium atom, in my room, with myself, the clock, and the independent time.   9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation at ground state was equal to one second of my clock at ground state, so I observed my clock, myself, the said independent time, and imagined the Caesium atom clock (D).  I observed all the clocks were travelling parallel in synchronised time  A||B ||C||D at ground state.   This was an interesting thought but did still  not give me the answer to what real time/absolute time was.

In consideration of this , the path of investigation lead me to consider time dilation/gravitational time dilation.

''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

''According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly, as expressed by the Lorentz factor. This effect, called time dilation,''

According to time dilation and relativity , the basics are that  time slows down when things are moving in comparison to an observer at rest at ground state .  This was evidentially shown to be true by the Caesium atoms  9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation at ground state that was equal to one second, changing , producing a different rate  when in motion showing time slowed down by relative motion compared to a ground state rest mass. Of cause if one knows time can change, then one can also presume time travel is possible and likes.   Evidentially all must be known about time and Minkowski space-time and relativity must be correct.   That would be an assumption someone who was not curious would make and settle to be the answer.

The rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock, in considering this, something is just not quite right, I am at rest relative to my clock that is at rest, I already know that A||B ||C||D at ground state, so now I am going to consider (E) an atomic clock/caesium clock in motion in respect to the ground state of myself, my clock, my imaginary Caesium clock, and the said independent time.  {A||B ||C||D } is-not-parallel-imageE  which means E is not parallel to  A,B,C.D  and is independent of A,B,C,D.

According to Minkowski and Einstein, time is independent of matter and exists independently as a space-time,  but my simple thought experiment shows the atomic clock/Caesium atom is independent from the ground state times and space-time.  The effect of time rate slowing down  in this instance was only experienced dependently by the Clock in motion independent of any other mass or space.

This then leads me to what time actually is.

3-Absolute Time is the dependent rate of decay of independent physical bodies/particles. (such as the Caesium atom)

3.1- This state of time is all of concrete existence, a rate that remains constant if the observer remains stationary at a ground state in an initial reference frame and a constant of gravitational influence.  Motion stretches this time, a change in rate of time by displacement of the gravitational force constant having effect on frequency rate.

Principle rule 1 – All independent observers of time, independently occupy their own time frame.

Principle rule 2- State 1 and state 2 are dependent for all observers, where as state 3 is independent for all observers.

Do not try to bs me and convince the readers that I do not know what I am talking about, I never wrote state 4,

Please discourse the above three states of time, you will find this is nothing different from present information except the 4 dimensional manifold is consisting of dependence to matter and space-time becomes a virtual representation of time, and all of this resides in the 4 th state of time, the 5th dimension of n-dimensional infinite space. A stationary reference frame, a stationary observer, an immortal whom is infinitely  small and infinitely large at the same time, with values that are unquantifiable with the except of negative.
« Last Edit: 07/02/2016 10:35:57 by Thebox »

#### sam7

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 48
##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #49 on: 07/02/2016 15:20:14 »
I for one can indeed confirm that the Illuminati are holding back scientific progress. I know for I am one of them. If they ever found out I told you this my life would be forfeit. It's up to you, TheBox, to find the truth. Good luck!

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
« Reply #49 on: 07/02/2016 15:20:14 »