0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Reread what I wrote and try to understand, this is fundamental to understanding frequency, wavelength and time.This is my last attempt
frequency = the amount of repeat occurrences
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.
science defines time has an emittance rate.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/01/2016 09:06:41frequency = 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.
I said the same thing , that is a bit nit picking just because I missed time off
frequency is the amount of repeat occurrences in a set amount of distance that we use to measure a rate of time.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/01/2016 23:23:52I said the same thing , that is a bit nit picking just because I missed time offNo, 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.Quote from: Thebox on 25/01/2016 23:23:52 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
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?
Quote from: Thebox on 26/01/2016 00:22:28According 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 .....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?
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?
time- the measurable event of change.
if I said the sky is red you would say it is blue
Quote from: Thebox on 25/01/2016 09:06:41time- 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.
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.
now do you understand about ''time dilation''?
The speed of light does not depend on the relative speed of the observer and the observed - Special Relativity.
I observe this differently
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
Quote from: Thebox on 27/01/2016 11:36:49I observe this differentlyNo you don't, you haven't observed anything. You have performed no experiments, you have not analysed any experiments to see how they work.Quote from: Thebox on 27/01/2016 11:36:49if 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.