Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: guest39538 on 01/05/2016 20:53:45

Two rocket ships make a parallel journey. Both ships travel at the same speed , onboard ship (A) there is a clock, on ship (B) there is no clock .
Both ships times recorded are as follows
+ve(A)= the journey starts at 0_{t} and ends after 10 seconds.
=0→1.s→2.s→3.s→4.s→5.s→6.s→7.s→8.s→9.s→10.s
+ve(B)= the journey also starts at 0_{t} but the journey is not timed.
=0→0→0→0→0→0→0→0→0→0→0
so does this mean that 0=1? 0=2? 0=3? etc............

One ship knows the time.
The other ship does not know the time.
You can equate things that are known to be equal. But the time is unknown if you don't measure it.
Mr Box, I think you are trying to equate ignorance with knowledge.

Mr Box, I think you are trying to equate ignorance with knowledge.
Not at all, the ignorance is not on my part.
Let's say ship A travels 1 m/s , I have already stated that both ships travel parallel to each other, therefore ship B is also travelling unknowingly 1m/s
So let us look at the half way stage of the journey, do you agree that both ships have travelled (A=5m)=(B=5m)?
then let us consider the two time lines
A=0 to 10,s
B= 0 to 0.s
at any point in the journey B is equal to A
0123456789
0000000000
0=1? 0=2? etc

You are quite clearly very confused. Time exists and marches on despite the absence of clocks or any measurement of it (very much like the fact that the distance between two points on the Earth that are 1 mile apart continues to be 1 mile apart even if you don't measure it). The Universe and the Earth are clearly much older than humans and all evidence we have tells us that time was no different before humans invented clocks that it is now that we have clocks. Therefore the simple act of not bothering to wear a watch or look at a clock has no impact on time, the universe, and/or mathematical rules like 0 < 1.

If you think of it in terms of two arrays of numbers.
A = (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)
B = (0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0)
Then the indexes for both arrays range from 0 to 9. So A(3) = 3 and B(3) = 0. So that only the indexes are equal and not the values that they select from each array. If we say that the index for A is i and the index for B is j then if i=0=j then A(i) = B(j) if and only if the indexes are both zero. If the indexes are equal and both greater than zero then A(i) <> B(j) if both indexes are in the range 1 to 9.

You are quite clearly very confused. Time exists and marches on despite the absence of clocks or any measurement of it (very much like the fact that the distance between two points on the Earth that are 1 mile apart continues to be 1 mile apart even if you don't measure it).
I am not confused, your sentence is confusing, you have just ruled out time dilation and length contraction with a few words.

If you think of it in terms of two arrays of numbers.
A = (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)
B = (0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0)
Then the indexes for both arrays range from 0 to 9. So A(3) = 3 and B(3) = 0. So that only the indexes are equal and not the values that they select from each array. If we say that the index for A is i and the index for B is j then if i=0=j then A(i) = B(j) if and only if the indexes are both zero. If the indexes are equal and both greater than zero then A(i) <> B(j) if both indexes are in the range 1 to 9.
I think Jeff sort of get's it
Take a single train carriage travelling a journey,
We record the time the train takes and it takes 1 hour.
We also consider the space that surrounds the train, there is 0 in this space, t only exists of the train, so lets say the train travels 10 meters, 0 runs parallel to the train, at any point of the trains journey, 0 is always equal to it and level to it.
000000000
123456789
000000000
Time has to be independent to the observer and the matrice of time is this
000
010
000
The trains journey looks like this
1000000000000000000
0100000000000000000
0010000000000000000
0001000000000000000
0000100000000000000
0000010000000000000
0000001000000000000
0000000100000000000
0000000010000000000
etc.....
0000000000000000001
[ Invalid Attachment ]
added  science and maths labels the value 0 , as 1.
0.....0
0.....1
0=1 and there is no difference.
Take a length , let us say 1m measured by you
0.......1m
now if i dont measure it
0.......0
Either 0 is equal in position to where you would put the value 1.
1 is seemingly a number that marks the end ....
Numbers are seemingly a partition system......
nnnnn
nn1nn
nnnnn
nn1nn
nnnnn
Numbers represent a quantity in ndimensional.
p.s I suppose this will be moved again....to the ignore areas of the forum
p.s  I am analising what numbers are and the true meaning and values of the numbers. How I learn is by saying what I think, then normally you reply with present information and try to correct me, I learn from your answers and corrections, that is my style and tenacious.

I am not confused, your sentence is confusing, you have just ruled out time dilation and length contraction with a few words.
You very clearly are and no I haven't. I've said nothing about how your measurements might be changed by movement relative to some object or set of objects you might want to measure. I said only that it doesn't matter if you bother to measure something. Just because you don't measure it doesn't mean there isn't a distance or a duration. The fact that different people might have yardsticks of different lengths and clocks that tick at different rates has no bearing whatsoever.

Ship B is periodically recording the time on its clock*.
But the clock is broken. It always reads 0.
When you have a piece of broken test equipment, you should exclude the measurements taken with the broken equipment, fix the equipment, and rerun the experiment.
*How you would periodically record something when your clock is broken is a black box problem.

I think Jeff sort of get's it
Yes, Jeff gets it, but you don't understand what it is he gets.
added  science and maths labels the value 0 , as 1.
0.....0
0.....1
0=1 and there is no difference.
Yes there is a difference. Science and maths treat these 2 numbers as different.
Take a length , let us say 1m measured by you
0.......1m
now if i dont measure it
0.......0
You are confusing an unknown value eg x with being the same as 0.
1 is seemingly a number that marks the end ....
Any number can mark an end
p.s I suppose this will be moved again....to the ignore areas of the forum
Yes if you start introducing new theories.
At the moment you are on the edge
I learn from your answers and corrections, that is my style and tenacious.
But you are not learning much.
You seem to be hung up on assigning a lot of values to be equal to 0 when they are not.

Any number can mark an end
So then you agree that numbers are just marks? purely invention and in reality there is no numbers, so if there is no numbers then that means 0, so every single number must be equal to zero because they don't exist to begin with.
Also the title says doe's 1 second of time equal 0 time which is seemingly being ignored and topic changed by yourselves and changed to meaning something different than the thread is asking.
The thread is not asking if 1 smarty is equal to 0 smarty's .
I will read more on this black box, it sounds a comparison to some of my own thoughts.
If something doe's not exist in physical form then the only real number value is 0?

sorry, I know it is off topic, but I am compelled to comment:
doe's ≠ does
!!!

sorry, I know it is off topic, but I am compelled to comment:
doe's ≠ does
!!!
well! correct
It is also not equal because does is a shorter length than doe's

So then you agree that numbers are just marks? purely invention and in reality there is no numbers,
No I don't agree.
But I do see that this thread is becoming more 'it can't be true'
While it is true that all the words we use are inventions, what they represent is real. A rose exists no matter what you call it, and quantity and measurements are real things.
And to answer your question  which you yourself took off topic  no, 1 second of time doe's not equal 0 time.

The thread is not asking if 1 smarty is equal to 0 smarty's .
I assume that this is talking about pieces of confectionery, not comparing Einsteins and Van Goghs?
When you count interchangeable (but indivisible) objects, we call these natural numbers, because you can count them in nature. You can have a positive number of objects (or zero), but you can't have a "negative" number of Smarties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number
So then you agree that numbers are just marks?
If you have divisible objects (like liters of wine), you can have a physical representation of a rational number (and perhaps it helps you imagine a real number).
And accountants quickly worked out how to produce negatives  if I loan you 50 litres of wine, and you give me 75 litres back, you have really only given me 25 litres overall. A debt acts like a negative.
So then you agree that numbers are just marks? purely invention and in reality there is no numbers
Natural numbers exist in nature in terms of electric charge. Numbers exist in polarization of light (horizontal vs vertical) and also flips of a coin or rotations of a sheet of paper. You end up with different kinds of numbers depending on the shape of the sheet of paper (square, rectangle, triangle, circle) or even whether it is colored on one side vs the same.
We can represent the numbers by marks on a line (or a 2D ), by writing the numbers in some script, or in equations.
if there is no numbers then that means 0, so every single number must be equal to zero because they don't exist to begin with
Historically, Classical mathematics developed the other way. The Greek mathematicians knew a considerable amount about numbers, but they debated a lot about whether you could have a zero.
You may recall from school that Roman Numerals had no zero  they didn't need one (so they thought).
It was Indian mathematicians who invented zero as an explicit number (although the accountants had worked it out a long time before that).

The thread is not asking if 1 smarty is equal to 0 smarty's .
I assume that this is talking about pieces of confectionery, not comparing Einsteins and Van Goghs?
When you count interchangeable (but indivisible) objects, we call these natural numbers, because you can count them in nature. You can have a positive number of objects (or zero), but you can't have a "negative" number of Smarties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number
So then you agree that numbers are just marks?
If you have divisible objects (like liters of wine), you can have a physical representation of a rational number (and perhaps it helps you imagine a real number).
And accountants quickly worked out how to produce negatives  if I loan you 50 litres of wine, and you give me 75 litres back, you have really only given me 25 litres overall. A debt acts like a negative.
So then you agree that numbers are just marks? purely invention and in reality there is no numbers
Natural numbers exist in nature in terms of electric charge. Numbers exist in polarization of light (horizontal vs vertical) and also flips of a coin or rotations of a sheet of paper. You end up with different kinds of numbers depending on the shape of the sheet of paper (square, rectangle, triangle, circle) or even whether it is colored on one side vs the same.
We can represent the numbers by marks on a line (or a 2D ), by writing the numbers in some script, or in equations.
if there is no numbers then that means 0, so every single number must be equal to zero because they don't exist to begin with
Historically, Classical mathematics developed the other way. The Greek mathematicians knew a considerable amount about numbers, but they debated a lot about whether you could have a zero.
You may recall from school that Roman Numerals had no zero  they didn't need one (so they thought).
It was Indian mathematicians who invented zero as an explicit number (although the accountants had worked it out a long time before that).
I applaud you Evan you teach well.
You say
''We can represent the numbers by marks on a line (or a 2D ), by writing the numbers in some script, or in equations.''
Ok, so If i do a time line and mark a point on the line number 1, what is number 1 equal to?

Ok, so If i do a time line and mark a point on the line number 1, what is number 1 equal to?
While we are waiting for Evan to come back:
Ok, you say this is a timeline therefore we assume the mark represents a point in elapsed time. However, you haven't said what measure. It could be 1s, m, h, day, yr, month, century, you have to specify.
It also helps if you show where your starting point is, which is represented by 0.

Ok, so If i do a time line and mark a point on the line number 1, what is number 1 equal to?
While we are waiting for Evan to come back:
Ok, you say this is a timeline therefore we assume the mark represents a point in elapsed time. However, you haven't said what measure. It could be 1s, m, h, day, yr, month, century, you have to specify.
It also helps if you show where your starting point is, which is represented by 0.
The starting point is a 0 point of space, the end point is also a 0 point of space, I will call it vector X and mark 1 second (the length I will define as 0.28820601851 mile.)
[ Invalid Attachment ]
=0.28820601851 mile
time=1.s
+ve=1035 mph
ve=1035 mph
t=1.s
A=0
B=0
1=??????????
1 marks what exactly?

The starting point is a 0 point of space, the end point is also a 0 point of space, I will call it vector X and mark 1 second (the length I will define as 0.28820601851 mile.)
There is a difference between "a number" and "a number with meaning or direction"
 You can compare 1 with 2, as an abstract mathematical concept
 But you cannot "compare apples and oranges", as the proverb goes
 You can walk 1 km north without changing your east/west distance at all (ie these are independent).
 And you can pass 1 second into the future without changing your east/west or your north/south position (ie these are independent)
 You can mark seconds on a time line (or hours or centuries).
 And you can mark miles on a space line (or feet or km).
 But you cannot mark seconds on a space line
 ...unless you are using some standard conversion rate (eg the speed of light c= 186,282 miles/second)
 ...and 1 second = 0.28820601851 miles is definitely not it!
 That is why relativity describes the universe as a 4dimensional spacetime
 With light as the only thing that relates the space and time dimensions in a repeatable way
Once you introduce relativistic speeds (eg objects moving faster than 1% of c) or intense gravitational fields (eg near a black hole), then you cannot accurately compare the distances or times measured by you with the distances or time measured by them. It's like the space line and the time line get warped.

The starting point is a 0 point of space, the end point is also a 0 point of space, I will call it vector X and mark 1 second (the length I will define as 0.28820601851 mile.)
There is a difference between "a number" and "a number with meaning or direction"
 You can compare 1 with 2, as an abstract mathematical concept
 But you cannot "compare apples and oranges", as the proverb goes
 You can walk 1 km north without changing your east/west distance at all (ie these are independent).
 And you can pass 1 second into the future without changing your east/west or your north/south position (ie these are independent)
 You can mark seconds on a time line (or hours or centuries).
 And you can mark miles on a space line (or feet or km).
 But you cannot mark seconds on a space line
 ...unless you are using some standard conversion rate (eg the speed of light c= 186,282 miles/second)
 ...and 1 second = 0.28820601851 miles is definitely not it!
 That is why relativity describes the universe as a 4dimensional spacetime
 With light as the only thing that relates the space and time dimensions in a repeatable way
Once you introduce relativistic speeds (eg objects moving faster than 1% of c) or intense gravitational fields (eg near a black hole), then you cannot accurately compare the distances or times measured by you with the distances or time measured by them. It's like the space line and the time line get warped.
Thank you , however I do not see where you directly answer my question in your post.
''But you cannot mark seconds on a space line''
What do you mean by this? do you mean that there is no time of space unless there is something travelling through it to create a measurement?
'' ...and 1 second = 0.28820601851 miles is definitely not it!''
You say definitely not, if that is the case then how long is a second? I think you will find if you check the maths that the entire universe is scaled and measured on the principle that 1s=~0.288mile relative to the Earths rotation relative to the motion of the sun.
I am not making this up it is what science learnt me then they tell me it is wrong.
So I ask again what is 1 second marked on a time line equal to? I conclude it is a length and science have the rate of time being a rate of distance . Speed over distance creating a measure of time.
My clock second finger moves 360 degrees in 60 seconds, but 60 seconds is not a measure of time , it is speed over distance. The speed and distance quantified by an interwoven measurement called time.
P's and are you saying spacetime is really light?
t=speed

you will find if you check the maths that the entire universe is scaled and measured on the principle that 1s=~0.288mile relative to the Earths rotation relative to the motion of the sun.
You have me there  I apologize!
Measuring time by the rotation of the Earth was a "standard conversion rate" (until 1967).
But you will find that:
 At your location, the rotation of the Earth will not take you 0.288miles in 1 second  it will be something considerably less than this.
 the second was defined (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second) as 1/86400 of an average solar day in the year 1900
 So a unit of time was defined in terms of another unit of time  the day
 This definition was obsoleted in 1967 by the cesium clock
 The unit of time was not derived from a length (the circumference of the Earth at the equator=24902 miles)/(86400 seconds in a day) ≈ 0.288miles
There are some good reasons why the rotation of the Earth was abandoned as a measure of time  for one thing, the rotation rate keeps changing with the weather and earthquakes, and it is gradually slowing down due to tidal friction with the oceans. Plus, it is not a measure which is readily accessible by a spacecraft far from Earth, and will not be agreed by a spacecraft traveling near the speed of light, or near a deep gravitational well.
They needed something more constant, more accessible and more portable: cesium.
do you mean that there is no time of space unless there is something travelling through it to create a measurement?
I mean that for me sitting at my keyboard, in the frame of reference of my desk, time and space are pretty much independent.
I can move through time without moving a finger (at the steady rate of 60 seconds every minute).
I can freely move my fingers through 3 dimensions, provided I don't try to exceed the speed of light (or even the speed of sound!)
It is best to derive measures of time from things that take a fixed, easily measurable and easily reproducible amount of time  like the period of a cesium atom's oscillation.
It is best to derive measures of space from things that take a fixed, easily measurable and easily reproducible amount of space  like the wavelength of light from krypton 86 (until 1983) and now the distance light travels in a vacuum, in 1 second.
So it is true that we now define the measure of space by a measure of time  but it uses a welldefined conversion factor = the speed of light in a vacuum.
And when you draw a graph, it is best to use units of time on the time axis, and units of distance on the space axis.
Avoid using units of distance on the time axis!

But you will find that:
 At your location, the rotation of the Earth will not take you 0.288miles in 1 second  it will be something considerably less than this.
That is of course true, but at what point in history did this become true and known knowledge?
It wasn't always this way, science didn't really progress until the 17th century, so yes although we know now that geometrical locations rotate at different speeds, at some point in history we did not know this, time was ''invented'' long before we even knew the Earth was ''round''. Not knowingly to history when they were recording time by using the likes of sundials , they were effectively measuring the Earth's rotation relative to the sun. In any instant of the measurement of time , the measurement is equal to a degree of motion or a length.
 This definition was obsoleted in 1967 by the cesium clock
Yes indeed the world now uses the caesium clock, however the fact is that the number of cycles of the caesium clock that is equal to 1 second is exactly that, equal to the old 1 second. You can check your facts and you will find this is accurate information.
 The unit of time was not derived from a length (the circumference of the Earth at the equator=24902 miles)/(86400 seconds in a day) ≈ 0.288miles
I believe it was unknowingly derived from a length or a degree of movement, a mistake by thinking the Earth was flat.
There are some good reasons why the rotation of the Earth was abandoned as a measure of time  for one thing, the rotation rate keeps changing with the weather and earthquakes, and it is gradually slowing down due to tidal friction with the oceans. Plus, it is not a measure which is readily accessible by a spacecraft far from Earth, and will not be agreed by a spacecraft traveling near the speed of light, or near a deep gravitational well.
Indeed the rotation of the earth was found to be a variate, where as a constant was needed to record time, so we switched over to the caesium but derived the rate by the original 1 second. (changing the spots on a Leopard does not change the fact it is still a Leopard).
I mean that for me sitting at my keyboard, in the frame of reference of my desk, time and space are pretty much independent.
I can move through time without moving a finger (at the steady rate of 60 seconds every minute).
I can freely move my fingers through 3 dimensions, provided I don't try to exceed the speed of light (or even the speed of sound!)
You say you can move through time, apparently identifying time as an entity that exists of space, yet space is made of nothing but is not nothing, surely you mean you are time, travelling through timeless space?
Space does not age so how can space have a time?
So it is true that we now define the measure of space by a measure of time  but it uses a welldefined conversion factor = the speed of light in a vacuum.
That just does not sound right, you have just said from my interpretation, that you measure time by a velocity of something that passes through space, but in the same sentence say ''we now define the measure of space by a measure of time'', however that is not true, you are not measuring space you are measuring things that move through space. Time dilation is only related to things/objects, how do you suggest that time dilates of space when there is nothing to ''time'' in nothing space?
Also you still avoided the question and did not answer what 1 was equal to?
If I remove the distance value I give and the velocities and create an xaxis with a 0 value at each ''end'',
then either of the ''ends'' change the 0 and mark a 1, what is 1 equal too?
Is it not true that relative space occupies absolute space?