[evan_au]

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 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 well-defined 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!

[guest39538]

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 well-defined 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 x-axis 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?