0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?
Quote from: Thebox on 04/02/2016 09:49:58What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?Never. It is only you that is making that claim. The world doesn't think anything of the sort.
it is you and science who insist that a slowing down of the clock affects time,
Something used to measure/record time is not time itself, so any fault in the time measuring device can not affect time in any sense?
Please discuss and do not remove AGAIN, it is not a new theory
Quote from: TheBoxWhat year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?It was at least several hundred BC.I tried unsuccessfully to find out who said it, but I recall that an ancient Greek philosopher said something like: "Curse the man who divided the day into such small pieces".This was after someone put a sundial in his building, dividing the day into hours.This altered his perception of time.But here we are talking about psychological or perceptual time, not the scientific use of time.Quoteit is you and science who insist that a slowing down of the clock affects time,This is confusing cause & effect.Science says that the clock slowing down is an effect of time going slower, not the cause of time going slower.QuoteSomething used to measure/record time is not time itself, so any fault in the time measuring device can not affect time in any sense?I agree. A broken clock does not stop time.But this presumes that the clock is something external to Sam. It also assumes that even though the clock may be part of Sam's spaceship, it is possible for the clock to stop, but the spaceship continues moving through space-time. The fact that Sam's clock ran slow (as seen by a distant observer, before it broke completely), is merely a symptom that Sam's whole life is running slow (as seen by a distant observer). The clock does not cause Sam to age more slowly, but is merely a symptom of the fact that Sam and his spacecraft and its clock are all in the same inertial frame, and people in a different inertial frames will see time traveling at different rates (even though everything inside the spacecraft looks perfectly normal to Sam). This statement is due to a limited understanding of a "clock" as an external physical device. But every atom and molecule of Sam's body is a clock, and every atom of his spacecraft is a clock:- Any radioactive element decays at a certain rate, regardless of whether it is carbon 14 or uranium 238. This is an atomic clock.- Every element and every compound absorbs and emits photons of certain specific frequencies. This represents a spectroscopic clock.- Every chemical group has certain vibrations at specific frequencies. This is a (micro)mechanical clock.- Every chemical reaction occurs at a certain rate, depending on temperature & concentration. This is a chemical clock.- Nerve impulses travel at a certain speed. This is a neural clock.- Every living thing ages at a certain rate. This is a biological clock.So even though Sam's wall clock has broken, as he plunges near a black hole, or travels onward at near the speed of light, it will seem to distant observers on Earth that the light in his cabin is red-shifted more than Doppler can explain, his nuclear reactor is lasting longer than the same reactor on Earth, and that Sam himself is aging slower than his twin brother on Earth. Meanwhile, everything inside the spacecraft seems perfectly fine to Sam - except that his twin brother on Earth seems to be aging slightly slower than Sam (hence the famous twin paradox).Today we don't have spaceships that can travel at relativistic speeds, but we do have access to particle accelerators and cosmic rays that generate unstable particles traveling at relativistic speeds, and we can measure the average lifetime of these particles - and we do see time dilation, because even subatomic particles are a clock. And we do have some very stable atomic clocks that can tell the difference in the rate of time between two adjacent floors of the same building.QuotePlease discuss and do not remove AGAIN, it is not a new theoryI agree. It is not a new theory. It is a broken understanding of an established theory. IMHO, after suitable discussion, it should be put out with other broken things.
Then you must also agree that a broken clock can not change time or effect time, and you must also agree that a change in a rate of any clock does not change or affect time.
A change in the rate of time does change and effect a perfectly functioning clock as well as every other definition of time.
If there is a collection of "clocks" that all operate by different mechanisms, as described by Evan (hourglass, pendulum clock, quartz oscillator, cesium atomic clock, nuclear decay clock, light clock, chemical clock, biological clock etc.), and all of them appear to slow by exactly the same magnitude, isn't the simplest explanation that the local time has slowed by that factor? What else could possibly slow down light and change the vibrational frequency of a crystal and change biological process speed and change gravity and change spring constants and change the decay rate of radioisotopes etc. etc. etc.?I'm not saying that it is impossible for some other mechanism to be taking place, but it would have to be something very weird--even weirder than time changing.And this is not purely abstract and theoretical. We have observed time dilation due to relativistic speeds. And we have observed time dilation due to gravitational fields.Time dilation is a weird and tricky concept, and is definitely counterintuitive. But just because it doesn't make sense doesn't make it wrong.Please, please, please. Take a minute, or a day--and try to understand what we are saying.
The simple explantion is that the clocks can never be quite as constant as time.
Quote from: Thebox on 04/02/2016 22:32:18The simple explantion is that the clocks can never be quite as constant as time.And all of the phenomena just happen to be inconsistent in the exact same way? Remember we are not just talking about devices as clocks, we are also talking about natural processes like nuclear decay and light frequencies...
Quote from: chiralSPO on 04/02/2016 22:35:04Quote from: Thebox on 04/02/2016 22:32:18The simple explantion is that the clocks can never be quite as constant as time.And all of the phenomena just happen to be inconsistent in the exact same way? Remember we are not just talking about devices as clocks, we are also talking about natural processes like nuclear decay and light frequencies...All effects we record, we observe, we even experience, but all of this needs no time to happen in , it only needs space. The value of time in space is zero Consider Earths path, →→→earththere is no history left behind we were ever in the space behind us.
Now you're just being silly.
Quote from: chiralSPO on 04/02/2016 23:10:37Now you're just being silly.Now?