Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 23/01/2016 20:17:10
-
as title.
0...................................................0
please answer the following question,
what is the rate of time between point A and point B or 0 and 0?
A rate of speed or a rate of distance or a rate of speed over distance can not be possibly a rate of future time.
-
There is no answer to your question as you have not given all the relative parameters.
What is the rate of any time past, present, or future, depends on who's reference frame you are measuring it from, and the relative speeds and relative direction of travel.
There is no Universal clock that has a Universal time.
Time is relative, not a constant.
Let go of your Newtonian view of reality. We have moved past that.
-
There is no answer to your question as you have not given all the relative parameters.
What is the rate of any time past, present, or future, depends on who's reference frame you are measuring it from, and the relative speeds and relative direction of travel.
There is no Universal clock that has a Universal time.
Time is relative, not a constant.
Let go of your Newtonian view of reality. We have moved past that.
A shadow on a sundial has a rate
A clock has a rate
A Caesium atom has a rate
Light has a rate
So you must be able to answer my seemingly simple question, I have not asked you the rate of light, I have not asked you the rate of a clock, I have not asked you the rate of a Caesium atom or did I ask the rate of a shadow, because all these rates are relative to motion over a distance, an increment of history, a based origin on the Earth's rate of spin relative to the Sun.
I asked what is the rate of time in the space between point A and point B?
Surely you are not going to suggest that the rate of time of space is the same as the rate of any of the mentioned?
Science explains light takes 1 second to travel 299 792 458m through space-time, so what is the rate of space-time? I do not see any measurement of time, I see measurement of relative velocity over a distance.
-
Rate is defined as change per unit time. Hence speed is the rate of change of position per unit time, flux is the number of photons crossing a unit area per unit time, etc.
The conventional unit of time is the second, so the rate of time is one second per second, i.e. 1.
-
Rate is defined as change per unit time. Hence speed is the rate of change of position per unit time, flux is the number of photons crossing a unit area per unit time, etc.
The conventional unit of time is the second, so the rate of time is one second per second, i.e. 1.
I am sorry Alan but at this moment from what you said, I am now confused. You define rate is a change per unit of time, yet time is defined by a rate,
so what exactly are you saying one second per second suppose to represent?
What are you saying a second is?
I do not understand,
if you was to measure anything you would start at 0 would you not?
So 0 to 1 second would have a distance would it not?
So how long of a distance is a 1 second distance?
For example lets us say we have a wave-length, in 1 second of distance there was ten cycles per second
in a second situation we had a 1 second of distance and the wave produced only 5 cycles per second of length
So how can the cycle difference ever possibly change the 1 second equal length?
I.e c running parallel to c ,299792458 m equal lengths
Now in one of the lengths we put a medium
Can you please explain the difference in wave lengths when the the two distances are equal?
d=.....................................................1s
d=.....................................................1s
Why does it matter how many cycles there are between A and B?
-
OK.. I don't know why but I'll give it one more go.
Seeing as you are not making it relative to anything than it can only mean that it is relative to yourself. Time for you will never change it's rate. You will age at the same rate until the day you die. That is irrelevant of your perceived speed, or the fact that you live in a Gravity well. In fact it makes no difference even if you went to space or even if you started accelerating towards the speed of light.
Time for you will always run at the same rate whatever system you want to measure it by. It has for all your past, it is now, and it is not going to change in your future.
You can not make your own time do anything other than run at the same rate.
-
Time always moves to the future. It does not stop nor does time moves in cycles. I can't go back to my youth nor does time cycle back to yesterday or last year. Although everyone is familiar with the flow of time, we nevertheless measure time using cyclic expressions that repeats itself; clocks and cesium atoms. What exactly are we measuring?
This is sort of like measuring light with a scale. This measurement may have value, but a scale is designed for the property of weight and does not properly reflect the nature of light, even of this give some form of measurement. This disconnect can lead to conceptual problems, due to the misrepresentation. If we measure temperature with a hydrometer, it can be done, but it makes the mind add extra properties to time to make the translation.
Time flows in a way that is much more similar to the concept of entropy. Both time and entropy increase, as both move to the future. Both time and entropy express changes of state which gain increasing complexity and change. Therefore an entropy clock would much better parallel the nature of time, so there is less conceptual confusion or need for translation. There are no hidden wires for conceptual confusion.
An example of an entropy clock, is what I will call the fish clock. With the fish clock, we take a fresh fish of standard weight and thickness and let it sit at room temperature. Our increment of time will be based on when you can smell the fish at 10 meters. Decay works under the principle of entropy, and like time, both decay and time will move to the future and will not reverse or cycle. We can't un-stink the fish. We are not misrepresenting time with a hidden wire.
That being said, if the universe was expanding relative to universal space-time, that means that all the entropy or fish clocks of the universe should be getting faster and faster, since time is speeding up. All the fish clocks should stinking sooner today than in the past. Is this observed?
As an experiment, say we have two factories, side by side, with each using X energy and making Y defects per hour; relative to our reference. We place these two factories side-by-side. The first will be in a slower reference were time runs slower than us and the second will be in an expanded space-time reference where time runs faster than us. Next, we observed the output from both at the same time. This simulates the old universe and the new universe. We can do this with stars.
If space-time expansion affects are real, the slower reference factory will show less energy output and fewer defect per unit of earth time. The faster reference will appear to be the opposite shown more output and more entropy per unit of earth time? Is this observed if we compare the oldest and the newest stars?
If not, space-time expansion cannot be the answer. It may just be space that is expanding. Maybe someone can show us how entropy and energy output was slower way back when.
-
yet time is defined by a rate,
Oh no it isn't. Time is defined as the separation between subsequent events. It is measured by the number of cycles of a cesium clock.
One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
-
yet time is defined by a rate,
Oh no it isn't. Time is defined as the separation between subsequent events. It is measured by the number of cycles of a cesium clock.
One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
It is measured by the number of cycles per second, the second came before the caesium clock, how is cycles per second not a rate?
''One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles''
I completely disagree, 9,192,631,770 cycles it the rate of the caesium atom in 1 second, the cycles are not 1 second you have matched the amount of rate to equal one second.
It would not matter if there was only ten cycles in 1 second, the length of 1 second does not change. 1 second is a reference point distance, this can not alter,
I noticed how you left out cycles per second.
-
yet time is defined by a rate,
Oh no it isn't. Time is defined as the separation between subsequent events. It is measured by the number of cycles of a cesium clock.
One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
I completely disagree,
Alan is right. Either the article you read is wrong or you have misread it.
1 second is not a distance.
It really does matter whether there are 9,192,631,770 cycles or 10 cycles in one second.
I'm beginning to understand why you are also confused over wavelength.
-
Alan is right. Either the article you read is wrong or you have misread it.
1 second is not a distance.
It really does matter whether there are 9,192,631,770 cycles or 10 cycles in one second.
I'm beginning to understand why you are also confused over wavelength.
I do not think you have it right there Colin, the number of cycles is used to represent a second, but the second came before the caesium clock, the cycles were originally timed by a normal second and made equal to a second. 1 second is a distance, any measurement starts at zero and has to have an end point.
-
Thebox, you need a bunch of these: ∆δd−÷∇. Make use of these or don't come back.
who's -> whose
it's -> its
affect -> effect
faster -> swifter
I take it this forum is actually full of engineers and other handykin.
-
Cycles per second is indeed a rate. So how many seconds are there in a second? One, always and for ever, by definition.
the cycles were originally timed by a normal second
What, pray, is a normal second? There are solar seconds (1/86400 of a solar day, used for daytime celestial navigation and general timekeeping) and siderial seconds (a bit shorter, used for night celestial navigation and astronomy) but as the earth wobbles a bit, the international standard second is only and exactly the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
-
I take it this forum is actually full of engineers and other handykin.
Not entirely. There are a few prancing pedants and supercilious smartarses who add nothing to the debate. Given the choice, I prefer to teach physic's to greengrocer's wot come to lern.
-
1 second is a distance, any measurement starts at zero and has to have an end point.
In the metric system used by scientists (SI):
- Distance is measured in meters between two points in space.
- Time is measured in seconds, between two points in time.
By taking something periodic like the motion of the Earth around the Sun, you have something which takes a certain amount of time to move a certain distance. So it is possible that you could confuse the units and say that "1 second is a distance". In this case, the distance is zero because the Earth returns to its original position
But Time and Distance are different units, and should not be confused.
the second came before the caesium clock, the cycles were originally timed by a normal second and made equal to a second.
The first definition of a second was with mechanical clocks, trying to track the average length of the day.
But the length of a day is a figure that keeps changing (eg due to tidal influence of the Moon, weather on Earth, etc). So in 1960, the length of the day was redefined as being a fraction of the year 1900, which, being in the past, did not change.
As clocks improved, it was possible to get atomic clocks (eg rubidium and cesium clocks) that were relatively cheap, and even portable. These could measure time in any lab more accurately than your average engineer, chemist or physicist could work out the length of the year 1900. So the length of the second was once again redefined, based on oscillation of cesium atoms.
This redefinition did not make the measurement less accurate, since the best astronomical data was used in making this calibration. But it did make time measurement more accurate and accessible for anyone who wanted to measure time in their own laboratory.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second#Based_on_mechanical_clocks
-
1 second is a distance, any measurement starts at zero and has to have an end point.
In the metric system used by scientists (SI):
- Distance is measured in meters between two points in space.
- Time is measured in seconds, between two points in time.
By taking something periodic like the motion of the Earth around the Sun, you have something which takes a certain amount of time to move a certain distance. So it is possible that you could confuse the units and say that "1 second is a distance". In this case, the distance is zero because the Earth returns to its original position
But Time and Distance are different units, and should not be confused.
the second came before the caesium clock, the cycles were originally timed by a normal second and made equal to a second.
The first definition of a second was with mechanical clocks, trying to track the average length of the day.
But the length of a day is a figure that keeps changing (eg due to tidal influence of the Moon, weather on Earth, etc). So in 1960, the length of the day was redefined as being a fraction of the year 1900, which, being in the past, did not change.
As clocks improved, it was possible to get atomic clocks (eg rubidium and cesium clocks) that were relatively cheap, and even portable. These could measure time in any lab more accurately than your average engineer, chemist or physicist could work out the length of the year 1900. So the length of the second was once again redefined, based on oscillation of cesium atoms.
This redefinition did not make the measurement less accurate, since the best astronomical data was used in making this calibration. But it did make time measurement more accurate and accessible for anyone who wanted to measure time in their own laboratory.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second#Based_on_mechanical_clocks
''- Distance is measured in meters between two points in space.
- Time is measured in seconds, between two points in time.''
Time is measured in seconds between two points of time, how is measuring between two points not a distance?
A............B distance
A............B time
Ok let us define we will use the speed of light in a vacuum to measure ''time''
The speed of light is constant as you know so is a perfect thing for measuring a rate of time.
299792458 m we define has an equal distance of c to 1 second
So in experiment I take 4 caesium clocks and fly them around the world twice, for each caesium clock there is a second clock of light timing the experiment
so we have 4 caesium clocks and 4 invariant light clocks.
clock A-light clock A
clock B-light clock B
clock C-light clock C
clock D-light clock D
All my light clocks
0.....................................1s
0.....................................1s
0.....................................1s
0.....................................1s
This never changes , my light clocks show no dilation of time while the inaccurate variant caesium clock is simply not a constant.
-
Cycles per second is indeed a rate. So how many seconds are there in a second? One, always and for ever, by definition.
the cycles were originally timed by a normal second
What, pray, is a normal second? There are solar seconds (1/86400 of a solar day, used for daytime celestial navigation and general timekeeping) and siderial seconds (a bit shorter, used for night celestial navigation and astronomy) but as the earth wobbles a bit, the international standard second is only and exactly the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
Quote me If I am incorrect, the caesium atom is in space-time so there is no way it can truly measure time.
-
OK.. I don't know why but I'll give it one more go.
Seeing as you are not making it relative to anything than it can only mean that it is relative to yourself. Time for you will never change it's rate. You will age at the same rate until the day you die. That is irrelevant of your perceived speed, or the fact that you live in a Gravity well. In fact it makes no difference even if you went to space or even if you started accelerating towards the speed of light.
Time for you will always run at the same rate whatever system you want to measure it by. It has for all your past, it is now, and it is not going to change in your future.
You can not make your own time do anything other than run at the same rate.
My time always runs at the same rate, your time always runs at the same rate, both of our times run at the same rate, time rate can not be different for different observers regardless of motion,
Like my question, what is the rate of space-time?
Not the rate of an atom, the rate of time? A caesium atom exists in space-time and can not measure space-time
Science may has well say a dripping taps speed effects time, it is the equivalent to saying the rate of an atom changing effects time, the caesium is a clock with a rate no different to a dripping tap.
How can a changing rate of something, that is a measuring aid, effect space-time? it simply can not.
-
I will ask it this way, the speed of light between A and B is an invariant, so If we flew 4 caesium clocks through this invariant, how does this effect the invariant constant in any way?
I consider the mistake is timing is different from time.
I consider the Keating experiment shows a timing dilation rather than a time dilation.
The Caesium atom frequency change being just that, the frequencies are out of sync in a period of time rather than time being out of sync.
Based on space-time=∞0
consider this
1. Travelling an X vector from left to right, we observe a distant object in our future path,
2. Travelling an X vector from left to right, we observe a distant object in our future past,
object.............0→...................object
t=→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→
Our past, our present, our future existing simultaneously
-
All my light clocks
0.....................................1s
0.....................................1s
0.....................................1s
0.....................................1s
This never changes , my light clocks show no dilation of time while the inaccurate variant caesium clock is simply not a constant.
My time always runs at the same rate, your time always runs at the same rate, both of our times run at the same rate, time rate can not be different for different observers regardless of motion,
Like my question, what is the rate of space-time?
OK.. you are of course wrong about the light clock versus the cesium clock. In the same reference frame they would display time at the same rate. Any clock of any description whatsoever would be affected in exactly the same way. Learn Relativity.
It is not the clock or type of device or the way you make an observation that is seen to change, and it is never seen to change for an observer within the same reference frame.
Your light clock and the cesium clock will never vary in your own reference frame, but they will both vary by the exact same amount from my reference frame looking at yours.
Rate of time for me in my reference frame is the same as rate of time for you in your reference frame. But looking from one reference frame to the other, unless we were hugging, the rates would never match. Even if you and me were in the same room with you sitting at the table and me pacing they would not match.
Now you can try and word it any weird way you like, but that is a fact backed up by empirical evidence.
You may not like it, but that is irrelevant to the Universe. It basically doesn't give a sh1t whether you like how it works or not.
-
consider this
1. Travelling an X vector from left to right, we observe a distant object in our future path,
2. Travelling an X vector from left to right, we observe a distant object in our future past,
object.............0→...................object
t=→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→
Our past, our present, our future existing simultaneously
I know about the clocks. I know what a clock.. you missed this I think
consider this
1. Travelling an X vector from left to right, we observe a distant object in our future path,
2. Travelling an X vector from left to right, we observe a distant object in our future past,
object.............0→...................object
t=→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→
Our past, our present, our future existing simultaneously
SORRY QUOTE FAILURE
-
If you can really observe a distant object in your future, you are definitely on the wrong forum.
I'm sure there must be forums for discussing the paranormal somewhere...
-
Cycles per second is indeed a rate. So how many seconds are there in a second? One, always and for ever, by definition.
the cycles were originally timed by a normal second
What, pray, is a normal second? There are solar seconds (1/86400 of a solar day, used for daytime celestial navigation and general timekeeping) and siderial seconds (a bit shorter, used for night celestial navigation and astronomy) but as the earth wobbles a bit, the international standard second is only and exactly the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
Quote me If I am incorrect, the caesium atom is in space-time so there is no way it can truly measure time.
Nobody said it did. I said we measure time by counting the cycles of its radiation. Fortunately we know enough about relativistic time dilatation to allow us to measure time with sufficient accuracy to navigate by GPS.
-
If you can really observe a distant object in your future, you are definitely on the wrong forum.
I'm sure there must be forums for discussing the paranormal somewhere...
Huh? if you are travelling a journey, let us say you are going to the moon, it takes an amount of ''time'' to get there, you can see the moon, technically you can see your future ahead of you.
-
Huh? if you are travelling a journey, let us say you are going to the moon, it takes an amount of ''time'' to get there, you can see the moon, technically you can see your future ahead of you.
You don't see the future, but you can see where you are going. That allows you to predict where and when you will be in the future and avoid bumping into things.
-
You don't see the future, but you can see where you are going. That allows you to predict where and when you will be in the future and avoid bumping into things.
Your not predicting anything, you observe the distant future. Relative to a stationary observer they are in the now and can see into there own future if they was to travel a linearity clear path over distance.
Consider Newtons Laws, a body in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by external forces, so now consider that a journey into the ''future'', your path is destined unless external acting force acts on your journey.
So a body in motion following a linear path the body w ill remain synchronised to its future fate. To say the future is quite ''clear''(constant-'constant), explains space and velocity and prediction.
constant-'constant is the key to the unification of the Universe, it may be obvious but it has obviously been overlooked because of its simplicity, however it is everything that makes relativity.
-
Why do I keep getting trapped in these ridiculous non logical posts?
I would have assumed that being a member of the supposedly clever monkeys, I would learn from experience and just stay away.
Is there any way to stop getting notifications about a post once you have made a comment?
-
Why do I keep getting trapped in these ridiculous non logical posts?
I would have assumed that being a member of the supposedly clever monkeys, I would learn from experience and just stay away.
Is there any way to stop getting notifications about a post once you have made a comment?
Where do you get your none logical from? it is axiom things, not even logic, self evidently true.
Can you or can you not see distant objects?
If you was to travel to the object that would take time to get there and be in your future when you arrived at the object?
So therefore simple axioms show us that we see the distance object in the now and also in a future relative to velocity.
-
Why do I keep getting trapped in these ridiculous non logical posts?
I would have assumed that being a member of the supposedly clever monkeys, I would learn from experience and just stay away.
Is there any way to stop getting notifications about a post once you have made a comment?
Yes, go to the button where you enabled notify you will see it now says unnotify (or some such)
Why do we get hooked, that's a whole new thread or two [:)]
Maybe it's hope?
-
Can you or can you not see distant objects?
I refuse to answer on the grounds you may try to incriminate me.
If you was to travel to the object that would take time to get there and be in your future when you arrived at the object?
When you arrived it would be your present, and the travelling would be in your past.
Unless you are Dr Who of course!
-
When you arrived it would be your present, and the travelling would be in your past.
Unless you are Dr Who of course!
Yes exactly, when the now of you moves closer to the object, the now of the object moves closer to you, eventually the now's merge when the destination is reached.
The Journey space behind you is the past but if you was making a round trip, the past behind you is now the future trip again.
-
Huh? if you are travelling a journey, let us say you are going to the moon, it takes an amount of ''time'' to get there, you can see the moon, technically you can see your future ahead of you.
You don't see the future, but you can see where you are going. That allows you to predict where and when you will be in the future and avoid bumping into things.
Let us imagine an absolute stationary reference frame and an object (A) in this frame, now let us define that the now/ time, only moves forward relative to this object, we shall set a rate of 1 second of increment of time for a time reference point of the history.
With our measurement increment rate we record 24 hours of history 86400 seconds.
Distance travelled 0 mile
time observed 24 hours
Now let us imagine an identical reference frame {b} that was divided from (A) by space (d)
Let us set the rate of time identical to (A)
We can imply t(A)∥ t(b} and is synchronous
Now let us imagine that (d) =299792458m between (A) and (b}
Let us define that c (the speed of light) is an invariant and a constant speed over (d)
Let us define that (c1) takes 1 second to travel from (A) to (b}
Let is define that (c2) takes 1 second to travel from (b} to (A)
We can imply that c1∥ c2 and is synchronous.
so we can imply t(A)∥ t(b}∥ c1∥ c2
Now let us consider motion, let us leave reference frame (A) stationary, let us rotate reference point (b} 360 degrees around reference point (A) several times keeping radius ®=299792458 m
Let us define a new rate of time for reference point (b] , let us call it 1 second but it was a shorter increment than the original 1 second of time, A slower time rate than {A}
let us now define that (a) ≠ {b] and is no longer synchronous
However the synchronous of space-time remains true,
c1∥ c2 and remains synchronous regardless of b's variant showing no time dilation.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
added- I got it, your clock is out of synch because the earth is not a perfect sphere,
the distance changes meaning more or less time to the ground for the light.
-
"1 second" cannot be a rate. The dimension of rate is T-1. One second is a measurement in dimension T.
You are strongly advised not to take flight until you have started the engine. Learn the fundamentals before inviting passegers on a journey into the unknown.
-
effects -> affects
travel -> go
The object could change at any time.
-
"1 second" cannot be a rate. The dimension of rate is T-1. One second is a measurement in dimension T.
You are strongly advised not to take flight until you have started the engine. Learn the fundamentals before inviting passegers on a journey into the unknown.
huuh?
''noun
1.
a measure, quantity, or frequency, typically one measured against another quantity or measure.''
verb
1.
assign a standard or value to (something) according to a particular scale.''
You use a rate of the caesium atom to define 1 second, d/t is a rate
-
You use a rate of the caesium atom to define 1 second, d/t is a rate
That doesn't make the second a rate.
One second is the time that elapses while the 9,192,631,770 cycles are counted, they are just a very accurate timer.
-
You use a rate of the caesium atom to define 1 second, d/t is a rate
That doesn't make the second a rate.
One second is the time that elapses while the 9,192,631,770 cycles are counted, they are just a very accurate timer.
No it is not,
''Prior to 1964 the international standard second had been based upon the orbital period of the Earth, but the cesium clock period was found to be much more stable than the Earth's orbit! The SI unit of time, the second, is now defined by this transition in cesium.''
And is the amount of cycles per second measured originally by 1 second on a clock.
'
look at this way
9,192,631,770 cycles in 1 second
8,192,631,770 cycles in 1 second
so how can the cycle rate affect a 1 second period?
1 second is one second and can not change,
1 second is equal to 0.277 mile at 1035 mph, anything else is a scaling from this.
Time is a continuous constant rate, to measure time it has to be measured by using a constant rate.
Any clock is independent from time. Time does not even care if the clock stops ticking
-
so how can the cycle rate affect a 1 second period?
It doesn't.
This is very, very basic maths. You should have stuck with Pete's course then you would understand.
I will try one last time.
Cycles per second is a measure of frequency. The frequency of your radio station (millions of cycles every second) is different from the frequency of mains electricity (50 cycles every second in UK).
If you want to measure one second using the mains, you would have to count 50 cycles to get 1second.
If you are using Cesium you have to count a lot more, but because they are closer together they still take up 1second.
Think of counting cars going by. In rush hour there will be far more cars going by every hour (and they are closer together) than there are at 2 in the morning (when they are further apart), eg 1000/hr against 2/hr, but the length of one hour is still the same.
-
so how can the cycle rate affect a 1 second period?
It doesn't.
This is very, very basic maths. You should have stuck with Pete's course then you would understand.
I will try one last time.
Cycles per second is a measure of frequency. The frequency of your radio station (millions of cycles every second) is different from the frequency of mains electricity (50 cycles every second in UK).
If you want to measure one second using the mains, you would have to count 50 cycles to get 1second.
If you are using Cesium you have to count a lot more, but because they are closer together they still take up 1second.
Think of counting cars going by. In rush hour there will be far more cars going by every hour (and they are closer together) than there are at 2 in the morning (when they are further apart), eg 1000/hr against 2/hr, but the length of one hour is still the same.
I know what a frequency is. You are missing the point, science defines time has an emittance rate. An emittance rate is not time.
It does not matter that the emittance rate slows down, this does not and can not affect time. A lag in emittance rate is not a lag in time, time is not emitted , time just is, and just is does not change.
-
I know what a frequency is.
Apparently not.
time just is, and just is does not change.
I never said it changed.
Reread what I wrote and try to understand, this is fundamental to understanding frequency, wavelength and time.
This is my last attempt
-
Reread what I wrote and try to understand, this is fundamental to understanding frequency, wavelength and time.
This is my last attempt
I know what a frequency and a wave length and what time is.
frequency = the amount of repeat occurrences
wave length - distance between peaks
time- the measurable event of change.
Why not try to read what I wrote again Colin, the post a few posts ago where I use light to measure time between point A and point B and use a circle to keep the radius distance always the same.
You are not understanding that any clock including atomic clocks is not time, they are devices, so please tell me how any device can change the rate of time?
It simply can't
''but the length of one hour is still the same.''
yes that is what I am saying , so you agree with me then ?
The length of one second does not change, the frequency may change but that does not affect the 1 second length.
-
OK, just back from the gym and feeling generous. I am oozing generosity.
Getting this right is so important to your understanding of time that I'll try again.
frequency = the amount of repeat occurrences
No.
Frequency is the number of repeat occurances in a given time, usually 1 second.
I'm going to labour this because it is important we get it right.
When you are resting your heart rate is probably around 60 = 60 beats every minute = a frequency of 1 beat/s.
If you run upstairs it might go up to 100 = 100 beats every minute. It is the same minute, but you are cramming more beats into it.
If your heart rate was really regular at 60 beats/min you could use it to time 1 min by counting beats.
The cesium clock is similar, we can count the cycles (beats) until we get to 9,192,631,770 and we know 1s has passed.
This doesn't mean time has an emittance rate as you call it, it is the clock that has a tick, and we are counting the ticks.
Why not try to read what I wrote again Colin, the post a few posts ago where I use light to measure time between point A and point B and use a circle to keep the radius distance always the same.
No point until we resolve this problem. It isn't one we can agree to disagree on, because it is too fundamental.
You are not understanding that any clock including atomic clocks is not time, they are devices, so please tell me how any device can change the rate of time?
It simply can't
You are right it can't (as far as we know).
This doesn't mean I agree with all you are saying so hear me out.
If you are at rest relative to a clock the time it shows will be consistent with other clocks at rest, and will not change.
If you move the clock as described in special relativity, then you will observe that the clock shows a diferent time to one that is at rest beside you.
''but the length of one hour is still the same.''
yes that is what I am saying , so you agree with me then ?
Yes, but subject to what I have just said.
The length of one second does not change, the frequency may change but that does not affect the 1 second length.
Yes, but again subject to what I have just said. So don't say I agree with all your theory.
You also need to go back and understand what Alan was saying about the rate of time, because time passes at 1 second every second, past future and present (we think). But it makes no sense to talk of the rate of time.
-
science defines time has an emittance rate.
No!!! (for the umpteenth time)
Time is the separation between sequential events, just as distance is the separation between geometric points.
We measure time with a cesium clock (we used to measure it with a klepsydra, but this forum is about science, not history) and we measure distance by the time it takes for light to travel between the points (we used to use Edward II's arm).
Definition of a dimension (e.g. time, length, mass) is not the same as the definition of a unit within that dimenson.
-
frequency = the amount of repeat occurrences
''No.
Frequency is the number of repeat occurances in a given time, usually 1 second.
I'm going to labour this because it is important we get it right.''
I said the same thing , that is a bit nit picking just because I missed time off, and after reading the rest of the post,and Alans post, frequency is the amount of repeat occurrences in a set amount of distance that we use to measure a rate of time.
The length of one second does not change, the frequency may change but that does not affect the 1 second length.
''Yes, but again subject to what I have just said. So don't say I agree with all your theory.''
I won't say a word on it Colin, you know what you agree with.
-
Let us imagine a journey, let us imagine that we are the Earth and are travelling through a space that contained no other mass but the Earth. Let us time ourselves, relative to space we can not time our journey, there is no other bodies to define points of measurement,
Lets us look back into our journey, we see nothing but blank space, let us look ahead into our journey , we see nothing but blank space, we only see now in this space. There is no history of our journey and no future of our journey.
P.s only just noticed, congrats on being a mod Colin.
-
I said the same thing , that is a bit nit picking just because I missed time off
No, what is missed off is important. If we don't get it 100% right we will always be misunderstanding each other.
If you were owed £100 and were given £10 would you be ok with that? Hey, they only left 0 off so you're being picky.
frequency is the amount of repeat occurrences in a set amount of distance that we use to measure a rate of time.
No not rate of time. You could say passage of time and be correct. Don't know why you added that because frequency isn't always used to measure time.
If by distance you mean ft, meters etc then no, it has to a unit of time - usually 1 second.
Better would be "frequency is the number of repeat occurrences in a set amount of time"
Edit: my post crossed in time with yours.
Thanks for congrats, but not sure, lots to learn about how to keep spam out etc.
Have a good night, sleep tight etc
-
I said the same thing , that is a bit nit picking just because I missed time off
No, what is missed off is important. If we don't get it 100% right we will always be misunderstanding each other.
If you were owed £100 and were given £10 would you be ok with that? Hey, they only left 0 off so you're being picky.
frequency is the amount of repeat occurrences in a set amount of distance that we use to measure a rate of time.
No not rate of time. You could say passage of time and be correct. Don't know why you added that because frequency isn't always used to measure time.
If by distance you mean ft, meters etc then no, it has to a unit of time - usually 1 second.
Better would be "frequency is the number of repeat occurrences in a set amount of time"
Edit: my post crossed in time with yours.
Thanks for congrats, but not sure, lots to learn about how to keep spam out etc.
Have a good night, sleep tight etc
OK, I agree with your points and should not presume the reader automatically knows what I mean, especially if I miss parts out using short versions as such and presuming the reader does not need explanation in their own knowing.
''If by distance you mean ft, meters etc then no, it has to a unit of time - usually 1 second.''
Anything after 0 is a ''distance''
01
How can you measure 1 second without having something relative distance wise to measure a ''distance''?
A clock second finger on a mechanical clock does work ,
A Caesium frequency does work.
A sundial even has movement over a distance of degree.
According to my maths 1 second is equal to 0.277 mile based on the origin of time and relative to the suns and earth's motion?
Presently the speed of time is 1035 mph?
This 1 second length then used to measure the cycles of the Caesium, so we could then use the cycles to represent 1 second because of the said stability of the constant of the Caesium which turns out to be a ''broken clock'' that has a variance,
Thank you good night.
-
According to my maths 1 second is equal to 0.277 mile based on the origin of time and relative to the suns and earth's motion?
Presently the speed of time is 1035 mph?
Did you use the circumference at the equator?
The second came into use with the development of mechanical clocks in Europe which lies latitude 40-50. At this latitude the circumference of a small circle is less than that of the equator, so the speed of light will be slower.
As you go north the small circles of latitude get smaller still, so as you approach the North Pole the speed of light will -> 0. So you have shown that the speed of light is not a constant, bet Einstein wishes he'd known that it would have saved a lot of thinking.
The current measurement of light speed is 671 million miles/hr compared to your 1035mph. This means that the circumference of the earth was a lot, lot bigger when it was measured in the 1800s.
We seem to have lost a lot of earth somewhere, any ideas?
-
According to my maths 1 second is equal to 0.277 mile based on the origin of time and relative to the suns and earth's motion?
Presently the speed of time is 1035 mph?
Did you use the circumference at the equator?
The second came into use with the development of mechanical clocks in Europe which lies latitude 40-50. At this latitude the circumference of a small circle is less than that of the equator, so the speed of light will be slower.
As you go north the small circles of latitude get smaller still, so as you approach the North Pole the speed of light will -> 0. So you have shown that the speed of light is not a constant, bet Einstein wishes he'd known that it would have saved a lot of thinking.
The current measurement of light speed is 671 million miles/hr compared to your 1035mph. This means that the circumference of the earth was a lot, lot bigger when it was measured in the 1800s.
We seem to have lost a lot of earth somewhere, any ideas?
Yes I used the equator and was referring before mechanical clocks, reference ancient Egypt and sundials. A mechanical clock had a reference of 1 second from somewhere.
I am unsure how 1035 mph of the Earth's spin has anything to do with the speed of light? and how exactly have i proved the speed of light is a variant? (caesium clocks?) or zero speed because of the cancelling out?
How does something get smaller? relatively it moves away.
Am I causing trouble in science , if so I will leave on your request?
or you are being sarcastic or I am misunderstanding or you are misunderstanding.
hope I haven't broke anything for real..
added - I am worried now, should I be?
-
Yes I used the equator .....
I am unsure how 1035 mph of the Earth's spin has anything to do with the speed of light?
Sorry, my misunderstanding of what 'speed of time' meant. This is why it ismportant to get understanding clear.
The 'speed of time' ie the rate at which time passes will affect the measurement of the speed of light, especially if it changes.
and how exactly have i proved the speed of light is a variant?
If you have calculated the 'speed of time' dependant on a specific circumference, that speed will change with circumference.
At Latitude 50° the distance travelled in a day, by a point on the surface, is less than that at the equator (unless you believe in a flat earth). So at that latitude the speed of time will be faster as it has a shorter distance to travel each day. Because of that the speed of light will change with latitude.
How does something get smaller? relatively it moves away.
The distance travelled around the earth on lines of latitude decreases the further north you go - look at a globe.
Am I causing trouble in science , if so I will leave on your request?
You won't cause science any problems I assure you [;)]
No one wants you to leave, just learn.
or you are being sarcastic or I am misunderstanding or you are misunderstanding.
Although I misunderstood the 'speed of time', I was not being sarcastic but just working out the consequences of using the equator as your distance. The effects I described still take place, and the 'speed of time' and the speed of light would vary between equator and the poles.
hope I haven't broke anything for real..
added - I am worried now, should I be?
Don't worry, I doubt if your theory will bring the end of the world much further forward [:)]
-
I learn every time I am engaged in discussion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, if I said the sky is red you would say it is blue, your reaction being the present answer.
My way of learning is to try to think first without knowing, or just knowing enough, then learn the knowing, some knowing I know from forum life.
If I come across something new I often just type the word and definition on the end in google and just view the definition, Then take it from there with my ideas to gain more information by your engagement, thinking as we go along.
I thank you Colin, this moderator position is truly suited for you.
-
time- the measurable event of change.
Wrong - indeed meaningless. Time is the dimension that separates sequential events. If you don't understand the definition, you won't get very far with any discussion of time.
As for "the speed of time", what you and Colin are discussing is the speed of time zones, which has nothing much to do with time. The time everywhere in the universe is exactly the same - UTC or Z time. The legal number on a clock, however, depends on where it is on the surface of the earth, and since that number is determined by an act of parliament, it is defined by politics, not physics. As a simple instance, legal time in Spain is Z + 1 even though most of the country is to the west of London, and during the summer it is Z + 2, but the time at the north and south poles is always Z.
-
if I said the sky is red you would say it is blue
That's because if the sky is red you are likely to say it's blue
What I was trying to do was show you the consequences of using what you call speed of time.
As Alan says, it has little to do with time, it is merely the speed at which a point on the equator moves. That speed varies with latitude which makes it of little use as a standard of anything.
Most importantly it tells us nothing about time.
-
time- the measurable event of change.
Wrong - indeed meaningless. Time is the dimension that separates sequential events. If you don't understand the definition, you won't get very far with any discussion of time.
wrong, n-dimensional space is that which separates sequential events. Time does not exist.
And that in which I was discussing with Colin, is how science presently measures the rate of the none existing time.
If you don't understand the difference between arbitrary time of a clock and the 0 time of space, you won't get very far with any discussion of time.
Let us discuss the nature of looking ahead relative to a body in motions future destination , you call this prediction, I call it inevitable.
How is this a prediction when you can see the start and the finish of the ''race''?
It is not a prediction it is a result .
so let us imagine a distance that takes 100 years to travel, I can look ahead and see the 100 year point, relative to me by time I arrive I will be in the future from now, I can predict I will be dead before I get there. I can also predict that if I remain ''stationary'', relatively my death time will not change.
Whether I make the journey or do not make journey is irrelevant, the now stays with me no matter what I do.
time can not be measured for one simple reason, anything after 0 quantifies as a distance.
0.277 mile is the present distance, the speed of time is presently 0.277 mile per second(clock time), I am not discussing time zones, I am discussing sciences mistakes. This particular mistake being time=distance, two different things meaning the same thing, a frequency rate over a d(x) is the same as a frequency rate over t(x), d(x) and t(x) being identical in length.
t(x) - d(x) = 0
t(x)=d(x)
fr1=c/x
fr2=var(c)/x
t=1
d=1
-
wrong, n-dimensional space is that which separates sequential events. Time does not exist.
And that in which I was discussing with Colin, is how science presently measures the rate of the none existing time.
Not as far as I was aware.
I was discussing the consequences of you using your measure of what you call 'rate of time' and your trying to use it to imply anything about time. The consequence is that your 'rate of time' varies depending on your position on the planet, which is of no use to anyone. Also I don't see any relationship to time that results from knowing London circles the earth at a slower mph than a location on the equator.
You are doing little more than looking at the speed of a car, it makes no difference to time how fast or slow it goes.
-
Not as far as I was aware.
I was discussing the consequences of you using your measure of what you call 'rate of time' and your trying to use it to imply anything about time. The consequence is that your 'rate of time' varies depending on your position on the planet, which is of no use to anyone. Also I don't see any relationship to time that results from knowing London circles the earth at a slower mph than a location on the equator.
You are doing little more than looking at the speed of a car, it makes no difference to time how fast or slow it goes.
Choose your words wisely my friend, lions pounce on ambiguity.
''You are doing little more than looking at the speed of a car, it makes no difference to time how fast or slow it goes.''
let us re-phrase your sentence.
You are doing little more than looking at the speed of a light when observing a Caesium frequency, it makes no difference to time how fast or slow it goes and is in comparison to looking at the speed of a car.
I lead you to thus far, now do you understand about ''time dilation''?
You are not observing time you observing the speed of something that is not time.
The value of space-time 0∞ all other values are watching the car in the 0∞
Light propagates through space-time, the frequency of light does not affect space-time, a dilation in frequency can not possibly affect the value of zero.
In a ''blank'' space there is no history you were ever there thus proposing space-time values to equal zero and thus proposing the existence of a separate entity of matter-time with a single existence value of 1.
Presenting space-time has a virtual representation of time of zero time, and presenting matter-time as the concrete existence of time. The value of 1 representing a single lifetime, which has a finite random length in 0∞ space-time.
-
now do you understand about ''time dilation''?
Yes I do.
The speed of a car depends on the relative speed of the observer and the observed - Galilean Relativity.
The speed of light does not depend on the relative speed of the observer and the observed - Special Relativity.
You will notice there is a difference, that difference results in time dilation, amongst other things.
-
The speed of light does not depend on the relative speed of the observer and the observed - Special Relativity.
let us discourse your sentence, the speed of light does not depend on the relative speed of the observer,
I observe this differently, relative to an observer if we imagine an observer travelling at c at a velocity approaching a light emitter, the observer will observe c to be twice as fast
c→→←←c - TheBox's relativity
If we imagine d=10 from A-B
let us imagine it takes t=10s for A to travel to B
Now let us imagine A travels to B and B travels to A , the journey is t=5s
Relatively c is dependent to a stationary reference frame between two points.
-
I observe this differently
No you don't, you haven't observed anything. You have performed no experiments, you have not analysed any experiments to see how they work.
if we imagine an observer travelling at c at a velocity approaching a light emitter, the observer will observe c to be twice as fast
Imagine all you like, reality continues despite your imagination.
I will leave you to your views and ideas. With such a fundamental misunderstanding we are going nowhere in any discussion.
I realise you think I've got it wrong, but that's not a problem to me.
-
I observe this differently
No you don't, you haven't observed anything. You have performed no experiments, you have not analysed any experiments to see how they work.
if we imagine an observer travelling at c at a velocity approaching a light emitter, the observer will observe c to be twice as fast
Imagine all you like, reality continues despite your imagination.
I will leave you to your views and ideas. With such a fundamental misunderstanding we are going nowhere in any discussion.
I realise you think I've got it wrong, but that's not a problem to me.
You have not got it wrong, you did not make any theory. The reality is exactly what I have just explained, whether or not you believe in imagination, when the imagination is imaging axioms, I think that tells reality.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Relatively c is dependent to a stationary reference frame between two points an axiom.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
The axiom is wrong. c is measurably constant for all observers. Try measuring it for yourself before stating that it is variable.
-
The axiom is wrong. c is measurably constant for all observers. Try measuring it for yourself before stating that it is variable.
c is measurable in a stationary reference frame, your background has to be a stationary reference frame , i.e we do not observe space moving, we observe things moving in a stationary reference frame. My constant-'constant.
I am sure I would measure any speed to be a constant between two points when the object is not accelerating. and besides I think it was Colin who presumed I was attacking the constant, but I wasn't I was attacking the caesium frequency change.
Distance and time is a constant, so if we measure using a set time and distance, any frequency change between the points is a speed change. So define this as you will.
-
I learn every time I am engaged in discussion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, if I said the sky is red you would say it is blue, your reaction being the present answer. =
And I would say it is blee or blea, not blue as the sea is blue.