Time

  • 130 Replies
  • 18283 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Time
« on: 11/03/2015 10:20:21 »
The value of 1 second is presently defined using an atomic clock based on the rate of a Caesium atom .

A 1 second value that is equal to 1 second of before 1960 that was based on Sun rise and Sunset.

Sun rise and Sunset being relative to motion of the Earth relative to the Sun.

A value that could only represent a distance of motion travelled.

I propose that presently 1 second is equal to a distance, a value of 1 second is equal to 0.2875 miles per second of the Earth's rotation.

I have researched looking for variants to this for purpose of eliminating my idea, and I am unable to find variants, I am only able to find invariants confirming my conferred thoughts.




*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #1 on: 11/03/2015 16:59:25 »
You've made a lot of proposals in this forum. Why? You can't get anywhere by posting it here since you need to get physicists in the field of standards to listen to you.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #2 on: 11/03/2015 18:04:28 »
I found here, no one elsewhere wants to listen, apparently I talk gibberish and science can not understand my ideas, according to science my ideas have no merit and just about everywhere banned me. 


*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1932
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #3 on: 11/03/2015 18:34:06 »

... a value of 1 second is equal to 0.2875 miles per second...


I think I found the problem, the units don't match up. 1 second cannot be equal to any number of miles per second. One is a unit of time, the other is a unit of speed.

I also don't see the value in changing our definition of second. True, it is currently an arbitrary definition, but any definition of a unit of time will be arbitrary. The important thing is that it can be agreed upon and remeasured as needed to serve as a ruler for other high-accuracy measurements.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1932
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #4 on: 11/03/2015 18:35:12 »
I found here, no one elsewhere wants to listen, apparently I talk gibberish and science can not understand my ideas, according to science my ideas have no merit and just about everywhere banned me.

If you are getting banned from everywhere, there might be a problem with your approach that requires some reconsideration on your part...

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #5 on: 11/03/2015 18:54:07 »
''1 second cannot be equal to any number of miles per second. One is a unit of time, the other is a unit of speed''

Yes 1 second cannot be equal to a distance, it should not be equal to a distance , but the answers science gave me confirms that the arbitrary meaning of 1 second is equal to a distance by the way time was recorded in the origin of time recorded by night and day.

I understand the situation of uses , however an arbitrary use of time based on motion of a distance travelled will not give us an accurate age to anything.

Speed is defined by time, time is defined by a distance travelled, science have the speed of light faster than arbitrary time based on motion.


My approach may be not of scientific presentation, but I am not a scientist or a Shakespeare.


The maths is simple,

1035 mph * 24 hrs = 24840 miles

24840 miles / 86400 seconds = 0.2875 mile per second


The speed of light is 299792458 m/s

0.2875 miles per second converted to meters is 462.69 m per second, I asked science how can the speed of light be faster than time
647933.731008 times faster than time,

To me it makes relatively no sense.













*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1932
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #6 on: 11/03/2015 19:51:38 »
These numbers do not imply that light is faster than time, only that light is faster than the rotation of the Earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #7 on: 11/03/2015 20:09:31 »
That would be a fare and true assessment if it were not for the origin of recording time.

Do you personally know any other way of the origin of time recording other than night and day and relative motion of the Earth to the Sun?

Time is based on the rotation of the Earth.

 
« Last Edit: 11/03/2015 20:11:53 by Thebox »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #8 on: 11/03/2015 21:46:53 »
 Added history of time , notice the parts I have put in bold.

''Ever since man first noticed the regular movement of the Sun and the stars, we have wondered about the passage of time. Prehistoric people first recorded the phases of the Moon some 30,000 years ago, and recording time has been a way by which humanity has observed the heavens and represented the progress of civilization.
Natural Events
The earliest natural events to be recognised were in the heavens, but during the course of the year there were many other events that indicated significant changes in the environment. Seasonal winds and rains, the flooding of rivers, the flowering of trees and plants, and the breeding cycles or migration of animals and birds, all led to natural divisions of the year, and further observation and local customs led to the recognition of the seasons.

Measuring time by the Sun, the Moon and the Stars

As the sun moves across the sky, shadows change in direction and length, so a simple sundial can measure the length of a day. It was quickly noticed that the length of the day varies at different times of the year. The reasons for this difference were not discovered until after astronomers accepted the fact that the earth travels round the sun in an elliptic orbit, and that the earth's axis is tilted at about 26 degrees. This variation from a circular orbit leads to the Equation of Time (see 'Note 2' below) which allows us to work out the difference between 'clock' time and 'sundial time'.

Another discovery was that sundials had to be specially made for different latitudes because the Sun's altitude in the sky decreases at higher latitudes, producing longer shadows than at lower latitudes. Today, artists and astronomers find many ways of creating modern sundials.''

http://nrich.maths.org/6070

google best answer -'' The Egyptians were (possibly) the first to realize that the shortest shadow cast by an obelisk would always point in the same direction, regardless of the season. Starting from there, they managed to determine the time of day based on the length and direction of the shadow cast by an obelisk.

Since it was inconvenient to build huge stone pillars everywhere, they eventually realized that even a tiny version, a stick in the ground, could accomplish the same. This was really the origin of the first sundial, which, contrary to popular belief, was not invented by the Romans.

As to why there are 24 hours in the day, well no one is sure who developed this system of measurement. It was probably the Egyptians again, because if you have to build pyramids that huge, you can be damn sure you'll care about the time. If you look on Wikipedia, it will tell you the 12 hour system was invented sometime between 2 BC and 1500 AD. ''


The length of one day being equal to one cycle of motion and one cycle of a set distance, a value of time being the same as motion distance travelled, a sun dial and shadow is based on relative motion to the sun, a sundial based on 360 degrees.

Speed came after time, the orbital spin speed was not known at the time.




« Last Edit: 11/03/2015 22:03:41 by Thebox »

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4175
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #9 on: 11/03/2015 21:56:13 »
If the solar system had been configured differently then we wouldn't be measuring in seconds. It would be something else. Maybe still based on the period of rotation of the earth but with a different rotational period. It has nothing to do with the speed of light. To determine that you simply need to do what Max Planck did and find the fundamental units that do not vary. Forget the second as it is arbitrary. This is fundamental. People will not tolerate views that do not make scientific sense. Get a book on mechanics out of your local library and start reading that.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #10 on: 11/03/2015 22:10:52 »
I think you must be misunderstanding or missing the entire point, 15 degrees on a sundial is equal to 1 hour.

15 degrees on a sundial is also equal to an amount of distance travelled relative to the Sun and of the sun, the shadow on the sundial is moving a distance.


A Sundial is not measuring time, it is measuring the relative movement of the shadow compared to the Suns position in the sky.

Also do not forget in history when a recording of time was first derived, they thought is was a flat earth, sun rise and sunset and did not know about rotation of the Earth.

A sundial or using any form of motion to measure time is not measuring time but simply measuring relative timing of motion.  A synchronization of timing of motion.


When light speed was found, the scientist were under the perceived impression of time.   

299792458 m/s   , a second based on a distance. 


How can that be accurate?

it reads c=299792458 m  per  462.69 m 







« Last Edit: 11/03/2015 23:09:41 by Thebox »

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2079
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #11 on: 11/03/2015 23:11:30 »
I think you must be misunderstanding or missing the entire point .........

Have you considered that it might be yourself who is missing the point. Read the previous post

If the solar system had been configured differently then we wouldn't be measuring in seconds. It would be something else. Maybe still based on the period of rotation of the earth but with a different rotational period.

What you are saying is already well understood, as jefferyH says it is an arbitrary measurement and history is irrelevant. We use it and it works.

and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #12 on: 11/03/2015 23:19:46 »
I think you must be misunderstanding or missing the entire point .........

Have you considered that it might be yourself who is missing the point. Read the previous post

If the solar system had been configured differently then we wouldn't be measuring in seconds. It would be something else. Maybe still based on the period of rotation of the earth but with a different rotational period.

What you are saying is already well understood, as jefferyH says it is an arbitrary measurement and history is irrelevant. We use it and it works.

I read the previous post and it is not me missing the point when it is my point.

''it is an arbitrary measurement and history is irrelevant. We use it and it works.''


You really think it is irrelevant that 1 second is equal to 462.69 m a distance and not time,  and the said speed of light being faster than time devised by Humanity ?

What happened to science?










*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2079
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #13 on: 11/03/2015 23:32:41 »

You really think it is irrelevant that 1 second is equal to 462.69 m a distance and not time,  and the said speed of light being faster than time devised by Humanity ?

As has been pointed out before 1 second is not equal to any distance, the speed of light is not faster than time devised by humanity.
You are confusing yourself in this and the other posts. You are unlikely to be banned from this forum, but in order for people to spend time answering your posts, you need to start making sense.

What happened to science?

Science is doing very well, thank you.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #14 on: 11/03/2015 23:34:35 »


What happened to science?
The greater question here is: What has happened to paying attention to those who are trying to help?
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #15 on: 11/03/2015 23:37:26 »
but in order for people to spend time answering your posts, you need to start making sense.

And listening to those who are trying to help!
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #16 on: 11/03/2015 23:41:17 »
My posts are not confusing, you are avoiding discussion. The evidence has been presented, true evidence of the history of time .

I have presented the maths to go with it.


I have presented truths about sundials and how time was not been measured.


You have not pointed out anything, you have just denied it and said it is wrong by presumption the present information is correct and in noway have shown anything contradicting or discourse of my statements that show factual truths about history and time keeping origin.

History is irrelevant  according to you, yet all our knowledge comes from history and the past scientists.

Time came before science and was accepted without contradiction by science.




« Last Edit: 11/03/2015 23:56:24 by Thebox »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #17 on: 11/03/2015 23:50:39 »
but in order for people to spend time answering your posts, you need to start making sense.

And listening to those who are trying to help!

This thread is my thread and is discussing a theory from myself, in none of my posts do I say I require any help in the present available information I am disputing.

I am disputing the present information is incorrect, I will not accept present information unless showed just cause, you saying it does not prove my science to be false, my statements are quite falsifiable.

P.s it is I trying to help you

« Last Edit: 11/03/2015 23:57:41 by Thebox »

*

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #18 on: 12/03/2015 00:00:06 »


This thread is my thread and is discussing a theory from myself, in none of my posts do I say I require any help in the present available information I am disputing.


You may or may not request any help but don't expect us to just sit by and be force feed crackpot theories. Whether you've requested it or not, we have the right to disagree and explain why. To date, several members have tried to enlighten you about your misconceptions but to no avail. Don't count on any of us to just lay down and take what you say as science fact.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1932
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #19 on: 12/03/2015 00:02:27 »


A Sundial is not measuring time, it is measuring the relative movement of the shadow compared to the Suns position in the sky.

A sundial or using any form of motion to measure time is not measuring time but simply measuring relative timing of motion.  A synchronization of timing of motion.

Yes. This (above) makes perfect sense to me. Because the Earth rotates at a (fairly) constant rate this rotation can be used as a way of measuring time (one full rotation is a day, any other duration can be measured as a fraction or multiple of that rotation)

The absolute speed of the rotation is irrelevant, it is the frequency that matters (in this case, one revolution per day). For example, the 462 m/s "speed of the Earth is rotating at" is only accurate near the equator. Near the North or South pole, the day is just as long (just under 24 hours), but the distance traveled is much smaller (you can demonstrate this to yourself with a globe if it doesn't make sense at first).

Also, I will point out that the Earth is slowing down. On average, the day is getting longer by about 2.3 ms every century. This does not have any fundamental implications on the definitions of time or space, it only means that the Earth is slowing down.


When light speed was found, the scientist were under the perceived impression of time.   

299792458 m/s   , a second based on a distance. 
How can that be accurate?

it reads c=299792458 m  per  462.69 m

Again, you are confusing time and space. 462.69 meters cannot be equal to any amount of time just as there is no number of dolphins equal to a rat. A car traveling at 5 meters per second does not imply that 5 = 462.69 just as a photon traveling at 299792458 meters per second does not imply that 299792458 = 462.69. This apparent paradox doesn't mean that our measurement of time is completely wrong, it means that yours is.

in summary:
seconds ≠ meters
dolphins ≠ rats
speed has units of meters per second, or miles per hour, or feet per minute, or whatever unit of length per unit time you want to use. There is nothing special about the "speed of Earth's rotation"

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #20 on: 12/03/2015 00:05:21 »


This thread is my thread and is discussing a theory from myself, in none of my posts do I say I require any help in the present available information I am disputing.


You may or may not request any help but don't expect us to just sit by and be force feed crackpot theories. Whether you've requested it or not, we have the right to disagree and explain why. To date, several members have tried to enlighten you about your misconceptions but to no avail. Don't count on any of us to just lay down and take what you say as science fact.

Please point out were members have talked about any of my points, quoted back present information is not discussing.

I await your first scientific post of the thread, I will not answer any more to flame attempts from my ex -forums members.

*

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #21 on: 12/03/2015 00:09:08 »

Please point out were members have talked about any of my points, quoted back present information is not discussing.

I await your first scientific post of the thread, I will not answer any more to flame attempts from my ex -forums members.
Check out the latest post #19. This member has some interesting points you should consider.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #22 on: 12/03/2015 00:09:35 »


A Sundial is not measuring time, it is measuring the relative movement of the shadow compared to the Suns position in the sky.

A sundial or using any form of motion to measure time is not measuring time but simply measuring relative timing of motion.  A synchronization of timing of motion.

Yes. This (above) makes perfect sense to me. Because the Earth rotates at a (fairly) constant rate this rotation can be used as a way of measuring time (one full rotation is a day, any other duration can be measured as a fraction or multiple of that rotation)

The absolute speed of the rotation is irrelevant, it is the frequency that matters (in this case, one revolution per day). For example, the 462 m/s "speed of the Earth is rotating at" is only accurate near the equator. Near the North or South pole, the day is just as long (just under 24 hours), but the distance traveled is much smaller (you can demonstrate this to yourself with a globe if it doesn't make sense at first).

Also, I will point out that the Earth is slowing down. On average, the day is getting longer by about 2.3 ms every century. This does not have any fundamental implications on the definitions of time or space, it only means that the Earth is slowing down.


When light speed was found, the scientist were under the perceived impression of time.   

299792458 m/s   , a second based on a distance. 
How can that be accurate?

it reads c=299792458 m  per  462.69 m

Again, you are confusing time and space. 462.69 meters cannot be equal to any amount of time just as there is no number of dolphins equal to a rat. A car traveling at 5 meters per second does not imply that 5 = 462.69 just as a photon traveling at 299792458 meters per second does not imply that 299792458 = 462.69. This apparent paradox doesn't mean that our measurement of time is completely wrong, it means that yours is.

in summary:
seconds ≠ meters
dolphins ≠ rats
speed has units of meters per second, or miles per hour, or feet per minute, or whatever unit of length per unit time you want to use. There is nothing special about the "speed of Earth's rotation"

In your first paragraph you have just completely agreed with me.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1932
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #23 on: 12/03/2015 00:11:38 »
I completely agreed with part of what you said. I accept your telling of history, but I disagree with your conclusion.

*

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #24 on: 12/03/2015 00:12:46 »


In your first paragraph you have just completely agreed with me.
I think you need to read all of his post, you will find several things which do not agree.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2079
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #25 on: 12/03/2015 00:16:35 »

....... my statements are quite falsifiable.

That is a true statement


I am disputing the present information is incorrect

We are also disputing it


......in none of my posts do I say I require any help in the present available information I am disputing.

In that case, I'm out
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #26 on: 12/03/2015 00:21:30 »


In your first paragraph you have just completely agreed with me.
I think you need to read all of his post, you will find several things which do not agree.

The first paragraph destroys the rest of the post


edit - Yes. This (above) makes perfect sense to me. Because the Earth rotates at a (fairly) constant rate this rotation can be used as a way of measuring time (one full rotation is a day,one full rotation is also my observation point travelling a circumference distance) any other duration can be measured as a fraction or multiple of that rotation)

« Last Edit: 12/03/2015 00:23:14 by Thebox »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #27 on: 12/03/2015 00:23:27 »

....... my statements are quite falsifiable.

That is a true statement


I am disputing the present information is incorrect

We are also disputing it


......in none of my posts do I say I require any help in the present available information I am disputing.

In that case, I'm out

I apologise if you were for my idea.

*

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #28 on: 12/03/2015 00:23:45 »


In that case, I'm out
I'm right behind you,................and speaking of time, this thread has become a waste of it.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #29 on: 12/03/2015 00:29:58 »
I completely agreed with part of what you said. I accept your telling of history, but I disagree with your conclusion.
How can you agree with the history then deny a conclusion based on the history that you  have just agreed with?  A history we still use today.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1932
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #30 on: 12/03/2015 00:52:17 »
I completely agreed with part of what you said. I accept your telling of history, but I disagree with your conclusion.
How can you agree with the history then deny a conclusion based on the history that you  have just agreed with?  A history we still use today.

My dispute is not with the history, but your interpretation of it. The science of it, if you will.


one full rotation is also my observation point travelling a circumference distance)

Does it also matter how fast the Earth is orbiting the Sun, or how fast the Sun is orbiting the center of the galaxy, or how fast the whole galaxy is moving?

Please read the rest of my previous post:
Again, you are confusing time and space. 462.69 meters cannot be equal to any amount of time just as there is no number of dolphins equal to a rat. A car traveling at 5 meters per second does not imply that 5 = 462.69 just as a photon traveling at 299792458 meters per second does not imply that 299792458 = 462.69. This apparent paradox doesn't mean that our measurement of time is completely wrong, it means that yours is.

in summary:
seconds ≠ meters
dolphins ≠ rats
speed has units of meters per second, or miles per hour, or feet per minute, or whatever unit of length per unit time you want to use. There is nothing special about the "speed of Earth's rotation"


Can you find any merit in any of my questions or points?

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #31 on: 12/03/2015 09:05:42 »
I completely agreed with part of what you said. I accept your telling of history, but I disagree with your conclusion.
How can you agree with the history then deny a conclusion based on the history that you  have just agreed with?  A history we still use today.

My dispute is not with the history, but your interpretation of it. The science of it, if you will.


one full rotation is also my observation point travelling a circumference distance)

Does it also matter how fast the Earth is orbiting the Sun, or how fast the Sun is orbiting the center of the galaxy, or how fast the whole galaxy is moving?

Please read the rest of my previous post:
Again, you are confusing time and space. 462.69 meters cannot be equal to any amount of time just as there is no number of dolphins equal to a rat. A car traveling at 5 meters per second does not imply that 5 = 462.69 just as a photon traveling at 299792458 meters per second does not imply that 299792458 = 462.69. This apparent paradox doesn't mean that our measurement of time is completely wrong, it means that yours is.

in summary:
seconds ≠ meters
dolphins ≠ rats
speed has units of meters per second, or miles per hour, or feet per minute, or whatever unit of length per unit time you want to use. There is nothing special about the "speed of Earth's rotation"


Can you find any merit in any of my questions or points?


My interpretation of time is not incorrect because when science keeps agreeing with me about the origin of time,  science is agreeing with me.

Regardless whether my account of rotational 1 second equals a Earth surface point travelled distance, science is agrees that the origin of time is based on motion which makes an inevitable 1 second would always equal a distance and timing of relative motion would be achieved but not timing of time.

I understand the points you are trying to make and I am not confusing time and space or space-time (see space-time thread).


The complete idea involves more than just motion, it involves a Unified theory of everything including the value of numbers.
If you go over my other threads you can see how it all links together. 


Let me try to explain something  -  If you are recording time 1 must equal 1, time is instant,

1 can not equal the word one, the one is 3 digits and not 1 digit.  One=3   three=5 and so on.

1 must equal 1.


The meaning of 0 is one.  0=1

the meaning of 0 is also ................     the dots been points of space  , I call it zero point space, you call it a dimension of space. 


Empty space between your eyes and an object (not accounting for air etc)  is unseen, a  point nothing of/in space is timeless, observe space and you only observing your time watching space, there is no space-time only your time filling a dimension of shapeless space or moving through a shapeless space.

It is complex to understand, I hope you understand after this post.





*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #32 on: 12/03/2015 09:18:12 »
I have just give it some more thought and it does not matter about the suns movement , we timed timing points by rotation and lining up the timing points.

If I spun a childs round about at a constant speed and I walked around the round about as it was revolving at a constant speed, the timing points would be the same every time.

If you were on the round about timing the exchange of relative motion, you are travelling a circular distance relative to your timing.

The distance and speed would always equal your time recorded and in essence be the same thing.

If you travelled away from me at 1035 mph into space and I did not move from my place on Earth at the great Pyramid, in 24 hrs we both travel the same distance.

« Last Edit: 12/03/2015 09:48:16 by Thebox »

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #33 on: 12/03/2015 19:37:16 »
I only bothered to read this thread because it had a lot of posts in it, so I wondered if there was anything worth reading in it. It was no surprise to find that there isn't - there never is when someone new creates an avalanche of new threads. What we have here is someone proposing that time is equal to distance. He/she is obsessed with the idea that this should involve an arbitrary unit of time tied to an arbitrary size of planet and an arbitrary point on the surface of that planet at an arbitrary altitude and the distance that point will move in terms of rotation based on a daily rotation of 361 degrees and arbitrary ways of slicing up rotation into units. What an absolute pile of pants!

If you want to relate time to distance, that can be indeed be done, but the sensible way to do it is to link it directly to the speed of light and the distance it covers in an amount of time. You still have to choose an arbitrary unit of time or length, but then you can derive the other unit from it. This does not at any point mean that time = distance, but merely that these two distinct things can be related in some way. I have described a direct relationship between the two, but the OP describes one with an intermediate step which is a rotation angle, so if he thinks time = distance, he should be claiming that time = rotation = distance because that logically follows from his argument, or rather should come in the middle of his argument. And now that we have rotation = distance, I think that ought to wrap things up neatly.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #34 on: 12/03/2015 19:54:37 »
I only bothered to read this thread because it had a lot of posts in it, so I wondered if there was anything worth reading in it. It was no surprise to find that there isn't - there never is when someone new creates an avalanche of new threads. What we have here is someone proposing that time is equal to distance. He/she is obsessed with the idea that this should involve an arbitrary unit of time tied to an arbitrary size of planet and an arbitrary point on the surface of that planet at an arbitrary altitude and the distance that point will move in terms of rotation based on a daily rotation of 361 degrees and arbitrary ways of slicing up rotation into units. What an absolute pile of pants!

If you want to relate time to distance, that can be indeed be done, but the sensible way to do it is to link it directly to the speed of light and the distance it covers in an amount of time. You still have to choose an arbitrary unit of time or length, but then you can derive the other unit from it. This does not at any point mean that time = distance, but merely that these two distinct things can be related in some way. I have described a direct relationship between the two, but the OP describes one with an intermediate step which is a rotation angle, so if he thinks time = distance, he should be claiming that time = rotation = distance because that logically follows from his argument, or rather should come in the middle of his argument. And now that we have rotation = distance, I think that ought to wrap things up neatly.

A nice attempt to oppose the idea, however without foundation for the points I have mentioned, the speed of light came much later than the derivation of time from an origin of time that equalled a distance travelled relative to the observer relative to method.
I could not understand how people have lost the ability to be objective to themselves and try to deny truth values.
Whom exactly are you defending against?  I am not an Alien we are all on this planet together.



You have to deny history and the origin of time which I do not believe anyone can do to show my idea is untrue and unfounded.

The obvious avoidance of my other threads by members tells me that my ideas are pretty much un-arguable, the reason  , they are the truths.

space time = 0

space time dilation = 0

A Caesium atom is not time, a difference in timing  of the caesium atom(s) in the Keating experiment is a gravity synchronization fluctuation and not a time dilation.


 





« Last Edit: 12/03/2015 21:09:09 by Thebox »

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1932
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #35 on: 12/03/2015 21:16:01 »
History does not make something true or untrue scientifically. We used to think the Earth was flat, but now we know better--this doesn't automatically invalidate other scientific advances made when this false knowledge was held to be true. It doesn't invalidate scientific advances based on repeated refinement of false ideas either--that's how all science works.

The reason your threads are "unarguable" has nothing to do with their truth, and everything to do with the fact that you are unable to understand our arguments and we are unable to understand yours.

Given this obvious disconnect and your inability to grasp the difference between units, ratios and values, we are at an impasse.


Do not be surprised if we completely stop replying to your posts.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #36 on: 12/03/2015 21:25:48 »
History does not make something true or untrue scientifically. We used to think the Earth was flat, but now we know better--this doesn't automatically invalidate other scientific advances made when this false knowledge was held to be true. It doesn't invalidate scientific advances based on repeated refinement of false ideas either--that's how all science works.

The reason your threads are "unarguable" has nothing to do with their truth, and everything to do with the fact that you are unable to understand our arguments and we are unable to understand yours.

Given this obvious disconnect and your inability to grasp the difference between units, ratios and values, we are at an impasse.


Do not be surprised if we completely stop replying to your posts.

They are unarguable because they are the scientific proofs from your very own science.

My observations and discourse of science present information and all the internet forums answers leave no other possible conclusions.

I have already heard all the opposing argument and all of it tries to deflect away from the issues being stated in question  that is sated by good logic and having very reasonable doubt of present information to its falsifiable statement.


I can show and have already shown that there is no space time and no dilation of time, 

Why do you insist on deflecting from the truth's?
« Last Edit: 12/03/2015 21:31:51 by Thebox »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #37 on: 12/03/2015 21:46:06 »
You only have to understand ''this''


Well actually ''this'' has dimensions, it is also 4 singular constants, it also occupies different dimensional pixel placement on your monitoring device, ''this'' occupies the volume of pixels within its dimensions, while you observe ''this'' you are not observing ''this'' time, you are monitoring your own time pass by.

''this'' has 4 constants and a ''vowel'', a ''vowel'' being its own dependant time.  ''this'' is now a ''blank space'' , blank space has a greater dimension than ''this'', ''blank space'' has 10 constants and a ''vowel'' occupying the volume of pixels contained.
''Blank space'' has more dimensional points than ''this'', ''blank space'' has more dimensions of space covered with time, a time that does not alter, a blank space is infinite in time with no beginning until occupied.



In physics, space-time (also space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. The space-time of our universe is usually interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the "fourth dimension".
By combining matter and time into a single manifold called occupied space, , time is treated as moving with an object, time  being dependent of the state of motion of an observer or the object and dependent relative to gravitational fields for the object or observer relative to the observers time dependency to gravitational fields.  Time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of the object or observer, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object or observer occupying and moving through space is   equal to the object or observers own time observed rate of  occupying and moving through space,
« Last Edit: 12/03/2015 21:59:52 by Thebox »

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #38 on: 12/03/2015 22:17:18 »
A nice attempt to oppose the idea, however without foundation for the points I have mentioned, the speed of light came much later than the derivation of time from an origin of time that equalled a distance travelled relative to the observer relative to method.

If you can't follow something when it's set out properly, there's really no hope for you. If you want to talk about time and to discuss its relationship to distance, don't get bogged down in the origin of the second which is merely an arbitrary unit of time. There is nothing magically special about the second that makes how its length was chosen important when looking at time itself, so all the stuff about planets going round and the distance some parts of one planet cover as they rotate is utterly irrelevant. If you want to tie time to distance, you need to do it via light.

Quote
I could not understand how people have lost the ability to be objective to themselves and try to deny truth values.
Whom exactly are you defending against?  I am not an Alien we are all on this planet together.

There is nothing to defend against here - I was just trying to point you in a better direction than the one you're going in because you're thinking is horribly muddled.

Quote
You have to deny history and the origin of time which I do not believe anyone can do to show my idea is untrue and unfounded.

History of the origin of the second is not the same thing as the issue of time. If you're obsessed with an unimportant measure of time to the point that you can't separate it from the idea of time itself, you aren't going to get any further.

Quote
The obvious avoidance of my other threads by members tells me that my ideas are pretty much un-arguable, the reason  , they are the truths.

They are not attracting attention because they say nothing of any value. This thread would have gone the same way, but people have been using it to explore your mind as it's always interesting to study how people think, or fail to.

Quote
A Caesium atom is not time, a difference in timing  of the caesium atom(s) in the Keating experiment is a gravity synchronization fluctuation and not a time dilation.

It's hard to work out what you're trying to attack there. Time dilation is a term from one theory, while other theories have other descriptions relating to how clocks run at different speeds. I don't know if you're trying to attack relativity or what your aim is there, but clocks certainly do get out of sync with each other when located at different altitudes in a gravity well or when moving relative to each other.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #39 on: 12/03/2015 22:33:37 »
A nice attempt to oppose the idea, however without foundation for the points I have mentioned, the speed of light came much later than the derivation of time from an origin of time that equalled a distance travelled relative to the observer relative to method.

If you can't follow something when it's set out properly, there's really no hope for you. If you want to talk about time and to discuss its relationship to distance, don't get bogged down in the origin of the second which is merely an arbitrary unit of time. There is nothing magically special about the second that makes how its length was chosen important when looking at time itself, so all the stuff about planets going round and the distance some parts of one planet cover as they rotate is utterly irrelevant. If you want to tie time to distance, you need to do it via light.

Quote
I could not understand how people have lost the ability to be objective to themselves and try to deny truth values.
Whom exactly are you defending against?  I am not an Alien we are all on this planet together.

There is nothing to defend against here - I was just trying to point you in a better direction than the one you're going in because you're thinking is horribly muddled.

Quote
You have to deny history and the origin of time which I do not believe anyone can do to show my idea is untrue and unfounded.

History of the origin of the second is not the same thing as the issue of time. If you're obsessed with an unimportant measure of time to the point that you can't separate it from the idea of time itself, you aren't going to get any further.

Quote
The obvious avoidance of my other threads by members tells me that my ideas are pretty much un-arguable, the reason  , they are the truths.



They are not attracting attention because they say nothing of any value. This thread would have gone the same way, but people have been using it to explore your mind as it's always interesting to study how people think, or fail to.

Quote
A Caesium atom is not time, a difference in timing  of the caesium atom(s) in the Keating experiment is a gravity synchronization fluctuation and not a time dilation.

It's hard to work out what you're trying to attack there. Time dilation is a term from one theory, while other theories have other descriptions relating to how clocks run at different speeds. I don't know if you're trying to attack relativity or what your aim is there, but clocks certainly do get out of sync with each other when located at different altitudes in a gravity well or when moving relative to each other.

Yes the arbitrary Caesium clocks have a synchronization off set, this should not be referred to as a time dilation.  A Caesium clock and the monitoring of a change in timing is not any effect on time itself.

You are trying to say I do not know time and trying to direct that I am in some way thinking an arbitrary meaning of time means something compared to real time.

It is not I who has SR based on a time dilation of an arbitrary device.

I understand very well what time is and what time certainly is not.








 

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #40 on: 13/03/2015 00:24:03 »
Yes the arbitrary Caesium clocks have a synchronization off set, this should not be referred to as a time dilation.  A Caesium clock and the monitoring of a change in timing is not any effect on time itself.

When discussing things within the theory of relativity, time dilation is the correct term. When discussing things withing your alternative theory, you are fully entitled to reject the terms and mechanisms of other theories, so that's fine.

Quote
You are trying to say I do not know time and trying to direct that I am in some way thinking an arbitrary meaning of time means something compared to real time.

I'm trying to get to an understanding of what your theory is. It started out with the assertion that time is distance, and for some reason you wanted to equate the two via the rotation of a planet and the movement of part of that planet. That isn't a good place to start.

Quote
It is not I who has SR based on a time dilation of an arbitrary device.
What arbitrary device does SR use?

Quote
I understand very well what time is and what time certainly is not.

So why do you want to equate it to distance in such a messy way?

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #41 on: 13/03/2015 04:14:34 »
How do you define Earth?

Are Earth mass and rotation rate constant?

How do you define the rotation of Earth?
« Last Edit: 13/03/2015 04:17:31 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #42 on: 13/03/2015 10:53:53 »
How do you define Earth?

Are Earth mass and rotation rate constant?

How do you define the rotation of Earth?

The Earths rotation was found to fluctuate, so we had to change to a  Caesium clock, another said constant that is not a constant.
« Last Edit: 13/03/2015 10:57:57 by Thebox »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #43 on: 13/03/2015 10:56:30 »
Yes the arbitrary Caesium clocks have a synchronization off set, this should not be referred to as a time dilation.  A Caesium clock and the monitoring of a change in timing is not any effect on time itself.

When discussing things within the theory of relativity, time dilation is the correct term. When discussing things withing your alternative theory, you are fully entitled to reject the terms and mechanisms of other theories, so that's fine.

Quote
You are trying to say I do not know time and trying to direct that I am in some way thinking an arbitrary meaning of time means something compared to real time.



I'm trying to get to an understanding of what your theory is. It started out with the assertion that time is distance, and for some reason you wanted to equate the two via the rotation of a planet and the movement of part of that planet. That isn't a good place to start.

Quote
It is not I who has SR based on a time dilation of an arbitrary device.
What arbitrary device does SR use?

Quote
I understand very well what time is and what time certainly is not.

So why do you want to equate it to distance in such a messy way?

I do not equate it to a distance, science already has done this, this is  the mistake I am showing, I know a distance cannot be time, history did not.



''I'm trying to get to an understanding of what your theory is. It started out with the assertion that time is distance, and for some reason you wanted to equate the two via the rotation of a planet and the movement of part of that planet. That isn't a good place to start.''

The other way around, this is what history did not me or what I want to do.

My theory is simple., my theory shows that even today science has time and distance being the same, a measuring of timing and not time.

I will put it simple -
Abstract- This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to reality,  in a  primary respect to science process, and  to create a primary rule or principle on which something is based as opposed to present and presenting naive set theories.
A reality that looks at the true values of reality, that humanity has quantified, and showing by logical axioms and relativistic thought that these uses have no other discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner.
 This is to show,  tacitly assume at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action that something is the case meaning to a discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner. By using a family of approaches to the presentation of science to construct a true reality based on absolute axiom truth.
A reality that looks at the true values that humanity has quantified.



« Last Edit: 13/03/2015 11:06:11 by Thebox »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #44 on: 13/03/2015 11:26:16 »
My argument is of simplicity that is the truth,  space-time or time in and of a space is none existent.

Time in an absolute void has no value unless the empty space is occupied by matter or a medium.



Time is dependent only of the matter or medium and space has no independent time because time in a space is infinite and can never change whilst empty of matter or a medium.

You can not and do not observe an empty space that is transparent and see through, you are in affect seeing ''time'' through space by observation of matter or a medium.

Space-time = 0 to infinite always with no start unless occupied by matter or a medium.

Science accepts without little afterthought, I am an improver with a whole lot of after thought.

When you are recording a race cars lap time, you are not recording the race cars time, you are using the car and marker points to record your own time watching the car.  Using a velocity to mark a length in time of your own time.
You can take away the car and observe a static track , your time is the same.
« Last Edit: 13/03/2015 11:50:31 by Thebox »

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #45 on: 13/03/2015 18:06:07 »
Well, if you've got any brilliant ideas in your head, you need to learn to express them more clearly so that you don't confuse everyone to the point that they can't work out what your argument is. Your first post didn't set things up very well.

Now you say that there's no time in empty space, so time only exists in that space when matter passes through it. This means that if we take an empty chunk of space called Jimmy, we can throw an elephant through it today, then leave it empty for a year before throwing a tiger through it. From the point of view of Jimmy, there is no time between the two events. What does this mean for the chunks of space on either side of it? Let's say we throw the elephant and tiger into Jimmy from a chunk of space called Sandy and they are caught by a friend in another chunk of space on the other side of Jimmy called Hamish. We throw the elephant through Jimmy from Sandy and it arrives in Hamish. We then wait a year and leave Jimmy empty, but time does not exist in Jimmy while it's empty. We then throw the tiger into Jimmy from Sandy and it arrives in Hamish just after the elephant, a whole year before we threw it. This would happen if no time has passed at all in Jimmy between the elephant and the tiger.

However, you can argue that the tiger takes its own time with it and that its time is tied to the time of the elephant across the timeless void of Jimmy, so the separation of a year is maintained when it arrives in Hamish. What this reveals then is that space doesn't have time in it at all, but time is held solely in matter like elephants and tigers - the space these animals occupy has no time, but they (the animals) have time. An empty space of one size has no time and an empty inflated area of space later on has no time either, so an empty region of space can expand over time without having any time in it - it expands by magic without increasing in size moment by moment through a progression controlled under time.

Your new theory will be a magnificent manifestation of witchcraft.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4175
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #46 on: 13/03/2015 22:05:34 »
Well, if you've got any brilliant ideas in your head, you need to learn to express them more clearly so that you don't confuse everyone to the point that they can't work out what your argument is. Your first post didn't set things up very well.

Now you say that there's no time in empty space, so time only exists in that space when matter passes through it. This means that if we take an empty chunk of space called Jimmy, we can throw an elephant through it today, then leave it empty for a year before throwing a tiger through it. From the point of view of Jimmy, there is no time between the two events. What does this mean for the chunks of space on either side of it? Let's say we throw the elephant and tiger into Jimmy from a chunk of space called Sandy and they are caught by a friend in another chunk of space on the other side of Jimmy called Hamish. We throw the elephant through Jimmy from Sandy and it arrives in Hamish. We then wait a year and leave Jimmy empty, but time does not exist in Jimmy while it's empty. We then throw the tiger into Jimmy from Sandy and it arrives in Hamish just after the elephant, a whole year before we threw it. This would happen if no time has passed at all in Jimmy between the elephant and the tiger.

However, you can argue that the tiger takes its own time with it and that its time is tied to the time of the elephant across the timeless void of Jimmy, so the separation of a year is maintained when it arrives in Hamish. What this reveals then is that space doesn't have time in it at all, but time is held solely in matter like elephants and tigers - the space these animals occupy has no time, but they (the animals) have time. An empty space of one size has no time and an empty inflated area of space later on has no time either, so an empty region of space can expand over time without having any time in it - it expands by magic without increasing in size moment by moment through a progression controlled under time.

Your new theory will be a magnificent manifestation of witchcraft.

That was funny I couldn't stop laughing.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2079
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #47 on: 14/03/2015 00:08:34 »
Well, if you've got any brilliant ideas in your head, you need to learn to express them more clearly so that you don't confuse everyone to the point that they can't work out what your argument is. .......
Your new theory will be a magnificent manifestation of witchcraft.

That was funny I couldn't stop laughing.

Like you I find the OP's ideas and arguments impossibly confused. A central assumption concerns the measurement of time. The OP consistently misreports history as showing that time=distance. To set the record straight:

A brief history of time (mmm, might use that as title of my next book)

Early people viewed the sun going around the earth and could measure midday using a simple stick in the ground. From there the sundial was firmly established by the Egyptians as a method of measuring time by means of angular movement. They divided day and night each into 12 parts (their duodecimal system). The sundial was never able to measure seconds and did not relate time to distance.
Variable hours based on the seasons were used until the invention of mechanical clocks in 16C when small units of time could be measured. At that stage units were borrowed from the Greeks who had devised the method of measuring angles in degrees, dividing the degree into 60 minutes and the minute into 60 seconds, a system we still use today in timekeeping.
Along the way to our modern system there have been many ways of measuring time and it is possible that today we might easily be measuring time in litres of water, cubits of sand, length of a pendulum or, the one I really like, the standard candle. Think of the light physicists measuring the speed of light in meters/candle! Is light faster than a candle?
At no point in history did we ever measure time as distance, this is a fabrication by the OP and all his consequential fabrications fall as a result (to use his own 'logic').

There are many other fabrications, that 0=1, he claims there is no spacetime and no time dilation, but offers no proof. He falsely believes "the obvious avoidance of my other threads by members tells me that my ideas are pretty much un-arguable" , which shows a poor understanding of how this forum works.

I have toyed with the idea that the OP is a troll, someone on TNS or another forum having a laugh and intending to reveal themselves on April 1st. It makes more sense to me than any of the 'theories' propounded here!
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #48 on: 14/03/2015 10:06:26 »
Quote from: Thebox
A Sundial is not measuring time, it is measuring the relative movement of the shadow compared to the Suns position in the sky.
Not only is this quite wrong but it shows that you don't know how physicists "define" time. Time is a description of the changes that occur in the universe. For example: consider a ball rolling down a hill. The role that time plays here is merely used to describe the location of the ball as it occupies different places in space. We say that the position changes "with time." In the same way the shadow that a Sundial casts on a dial is exactly what it means to measure time.

Read and learn: http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/time.htm

Quote from: Thebox
My interpretation of time is not incorrect because when science keeps agreeing with me about the origin of time,  science is agreeing with me.
I can promise you that's not true. Science is what scientists do and since I'm a scientist (a physicist to be exact) I can tell you how myself and all of my colleagues all over the world think of time and its as described in the above link.

Where you got the idea that you're correct is beyond me. You most certainly never provided a reference to a textbook where any respectable physicist describes it in the same way you do.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3250
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #49 on: 14/03/2015 10:27:56 »
Quote from: Thebox
A Sundial is not measuring time, it is measuring the relative movement of the shadow compared to the Suns position in the sky.
Not only is this quite wrong but it shows that you don't know how physicists "define" time. Time is a description of the changes that occur in the universe. For example: consider a ball rolling down a hill. The role that time plays here is merely used to describe the location of the ball as it occupies different places in space. We say that the position changes "with time." In the same way the shadow that a Sundial casts on a dial is exactly what it means to measure time.

Read and learn: http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/time.htm

Quote from: Thebox
My interpretation of time is not incorrect because when science keeps agreeing with me about the origin of time,  science is agreeing with me.
I can promise you that's not true. Science is what scientists do and since I'm a scientist (a physicist to be exact) I can tell you how myself and all of my colleagues all over the world think of time and its as described in the above link.

Where you got the idea that you're correct is beyond me. You most certainly never provided a reference to a textbook where any respectable physicist describes it in the same way you do.


''consider a ball rolling down a hill. The role that time plays here is merely used to describe the location of the ball as it occupies different places in space''


The ball rolling down a hill's speed and distance travelled defines your time watching the ball.

If you are a Physicist you know very well on a sundial there is relative movement of the shadow.

''I can promise you that's not true. Science is what scientists do and since I'm a scientist (a physicist to be exact) I can tell you how myself and all of my colleagues all over the world think of time and its as described in the above link.''

I can promise you that yourself and your colleagues accepted time without question of afterthought.


« Last Edit: 14/03/2015 10:33:28 by Thebox »