0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
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.
yet time is defined by a rate,
Quote from: Thebox on 24/01/2016 11:11:43yet 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.
Quote from: alancalverd on 24/01/2016 13:13:06Quote from: Thebox on 24/01/2016 11:11:43yet 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.
the cycles were originally timed by a normal second
I take it this forum is actually full of engineers and other handykin.
1 second is a distance, any measurement starts at zero and has to have an end point.
the second came before the caesium clock, the cycles were originally timed by a normal second and made equal to a second.
Quote from: TheBox1 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 positionBut Time and Distance are different units, and should not be confused.Quotethe 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
Cycles per second is indeed a rate. So how many seconds are there in a second? One, always and for ever, by definition.Quotethe 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.
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.
All my light clocks0.....................................1s0.....................................1s0.....................................1s0.....................................1sThis 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?