Prev: n-stars.
Next: Time sharing space aether geometry
From: mpc755 on 22 Jun 2010 23:56 On Jun 22, 9:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Peter Riedt" <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:0bff0fd8-0b77-469c-b59d-56c7dc17210a(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 22, 5:24 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > >> On Jun 22, 4:39 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >> > On Jun 20, 2:17 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > On Jun 19, 7:51 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >> > > > On Jun 18, 11:19 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > >> > > > > On Jun 18, 4:14 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >> > > > > > On Jun 17, 1:30 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > >> > > > > [..] > > >> > > > > > Thomas, clocks divide a period of 24 hours into 3600 minutes or > >> > > > > > 86400 seconds or > >> > > > > > smaller divisions using a mechanical process such as a pendulum > >> > > > > > swing that is governed > >> > > > > > by the law of inertia. They do as you say count something that > >> > > > > > occurs repeatedly but there is > >> > > > > > no timekeeping by nature including forces or laws that vary the > >> > > > > > rate of time. > > >> > > > > Here you confuse (on purpose?) a human concept ("time") with a > >> > > > > physical instrument (a clock). Do you claim that inertia and > >> > > > > forces do > >> > > > > not affect clock rate? Evidence shows otherwise. > > >> > > > Harald, no confusion here. The clock is a device to measure time > >> > > > according to > >> > > > human concepts and requirements. A clock does not equal time. > >> > > > Forces > >> > > > affect > >> > > > clock rates, i.e. the greater a gravitational attraction is, the > >> > > > faster the weights > >> > > > that drive a pendulum clock will descend. > > >> > > > Peter Riedt > > >> > > You have that backwards Peter. Increased gravity slows the rate of > >> > > time. Increased velocity slows time. You are right, gravity alters > >> > > the > >> > > rate of time. > > >> > Mathal, not at all. If I said that I was wrong. Gravity will affect > >> > processes, devices (example clocks), substances and life forms but > >> > not time. > > >> > Peter Riedt > > >> Peter, according to you (and me), "time" is a measure of progress of > >> physical processes. As you put it: > > >> "A unit of time is an > >> arbitrary time interval established for practical human purposes and > >> derived from and based on a repeatable cyclical physical process." > > >> You also agree that "time" is just a human concept, based on the > >> observation of such physical processes, and that we are free to define > >> it as such: > >> "Time, whichever way defined by man, is not required for nature > >> to function or progress." > > >> Thus if we define a "time" standard as such processes (for example the > >> rate of atomic clocks), and if all such processes happen to be equally > >> slowed down due to some cause (as you admit to be possible), why do > >> you object to calling that a slowdown of "time"? > > >> It appears that you are just degrading this to a disagreement about > >> words. > > >> Harald- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Harald, I am trying to be precise. Nature does not know or use time; > > only humans do. > > Just as nature doesn't use length or mass etc. > > > Instead, nature uses change in a timeless way without > > You can't have change without time > > > remembering the status before the change or planning the status after > > the change. > > Before and after means time > > > As time does not exist, > > But you've just implied that it does .. you talk about before and after > > > it cannot slow down or speed up. > > Well. .time DOES exist, and so it can > > > However, the rate of change can vary. > > Which is what we call time > The rate of change is independent of time. You have a battery operated clock in your home. It starts to tick slower. Has time changed or do you replace the batteries. An astronaut is on a space ship which is circling the globe. The astronaut measures time by their location with respect to the Earth and Sun based upon the distant stars. The astronaut determines one year has passed based upon the location of the distant stars to be as close to the approximate locations as when the experiment started. The atomic clock on the space ship does not say one year has passed because it did not tick at the correct rate. The battery operated clock in your home and the atomic clock on the space ship ticked at the incorrect rate. Time did not change.
From: mpc755 on 23 Jun 2010 00:00 On Jun 22, 11:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 9:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Peter Riedt" <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > >news:0bff0fd8-0b77-469c-b59d-56c7dc17210a(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Jun 22, 5:24 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > >> On Jun 22, 4:39 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> > On Jun 20, 2:17 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > On Jun 19, 7:51 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> > > > On Jun 18, 11:19 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > >> > > > > On Jun 18, 4:14 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > On Jun 17, 1:30 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > > >> > > > > [..] > > > >> > > > > > Thomas, clocks divide a period of 24 hours into 3600 minutes or > > >> > > > > > 86400 seconds or > > >> > > > > > smaller divisions using a mechanical process such as a pendulum > > >> > > > > > swing that is governed > > >> > > > > > by the law of inertia. They do as you say count something that > > >> > > > > > occurs repeatedly but there is > > >> > > > > > no timekeeping by nature including forces or laws that vary the > > >> > > > > > rate of time. > > > >> > > > > Here you confuse (on purpose?) a human concept ("time") with a > > >> > > > > physical instrument (a clock). Do you claim that inertia and > > >> > > > > forces do > > >> > > > > not affect clock rate? Evidence shows otherwise. > > > >> > > > Harald, no confusion here. The clock is a device to measure time > > >> > > > according to > > >> > > > human concepts and requirements. A clock does not equal time. > > >> > > > Forces > > >> > > > affect > > >> > > > clock rates, i.e. the greater a gravitational attraction is, the > > >> > > > faster the weights > > >> > > > that drive a pendulum clock will descend. > > > >> > > > Peter Riedt > > > >> > > You have that backwards Peter. Increased gravity slows the rate of > > >> > > time. Increased velocity slows time. You are right, gravity alters > > >> > > the > > >> > > rate of time. > > > >> > Mathal, not at all. If I said that I was wrong. Gravity will affect > > >> > processes, devices (example clocks), substances and life forms but > > >> > not time. > > > >> > Peter Riedt > > > >> Peter, according to you (and me), "time" is a measure of progress of > > >> physical processes. As you put it: > > > >> "A unit of time is an > > >> arbitrary time interval established for practical human purposes and > > >> derived from and based on a repeatable cyclical physical process." > > > >> You also agree that "time" is just a human concept, based on the > > >> observation of such physical processes, and that we are free to define > > >> it as such: > > >> "Time, whichever way defined by man, is not required for nature > > >> to function or progress." > > > >> Thus if we define a "time" standard as such processes (for example the > > >> rate of atomic clocks), and if all such processes happen to be equally > > >> slowed down due to some cause (as you admit to be possible), why do > > >> you object to calling that a slowdown of "time"? > > > >> It appears that you are just degrading this to a disagreement about > > >> words. > > > >> Harald- Hide quoted text - > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > Harald, I am trying to be precise. Nature does not know or use time; > > > only humans do. > > > Just as nature doesn't use length or mass etc. > > > > Instead, nature uses change in a timeless way without > > > You can't have change without time > > > > remembering the status before the change or planning the status after > > > the change. > > > Before and after means time > > > > As time does not exist, > > > But you've just implied that it does .. you talk about before and after > > > > it cannot slow down or speed up. > > > Well. .time DOES exist, and so it can > > > > However, the rate of change can vary. > > > Which is what we call time > > The rate of change is independent of time. > > You have a battery operated clock in your home. It starts to tick > slower. Has time changed or do you replace the batteries. > > An astronaut is on a space ship which is circling the globe. The > astronaut measures time by their location with respect to the Earth > and Sun based upon the distant stars. The astronaut determines one > year has passed based upon the location of the distant stars to be as > close to the approximate locations as when the experiment started. The > atomic clock on the space ship does not say one year has passed > because it did not tick at the correct rate. > > The battery operated clock in your home and the atomic clock on the > space ship ticked at the incorrect rate. Time did not change. The reason why you know time did not change in your house is because you understand the reason why your battery operated clock ticked slower. The reason why you think time changes for an atomic clock is because you do not understand the reason why the rate at which atomic clocks tick changes. Atomic clocks tick based upon the aether pressure in which they exist. Now you know why atomic clock tick at different rates and you can stop confusing the rate at which an atomic clock ticks with time.
From: harald on 23 Jun 2010 05:52 On Jun 23, 2:40 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Jun 22, 5:24 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 22, 4:39 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On Jun 20, 2:17 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 19, 7:51 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 18, 11:19 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 4:14 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 1:30 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > > Thomas, clocks divide a period of 24 hours into 3600 minutes or > > > > > > > 86400 seconds or > > > > > > > smaller divisions using a mechanical process such as a pendulum > > > > > > > swing that is governed > > > > > > > by the law of inertia. They do as you say count something that > > > > > > > occurs repeatedly but there is > > > > > > > no timekeeping by nature including forces or laws that vary the > > > > > > > rate of time. > > > > > > > Here you confuse (on purpose?) a human concept ("time") with a > > > > > > physical instrument (a clock). Do you claim that inertia and forces do > > > > > > not affect clock rate? Evidence shows otherwise. > > > > > > Harald, no confusion here. The clock is a device to measure time > > > > > according to > > > > > human concepts and requirements. A clock does not equal time. Forces > > > > > affect > > > > > clock rates, i.e. the greater a gravitational attraction is, the > > > > > faster the weights > > > > > that drive a pendulum clock will descend. > > > > > > Peter Riedt > > > > > You have that backwards Peter. Increased gravity slows the rate of > > > > time. Increased velocity slows time. You are right, gravity alters the > > > > rate of time. > > > > Mathal, not at all. If I said that I was wrong. Gravity will affect > > > processes, devices (example clocks), substances and life forms but > > > not time. > > > > Peter Riedt > > > Peter, according to you (and me), "time" is a measure of progress of > > physical processes. As you put it: > > > "A unit of time is an > > arbitrary time interval established for practical human purposes and > > derived from and based on a repeatable cyclical physical process." > > > You also agree that "time" is just a human concept, based on the > > observation of such physical processes, and that we are free to define > > it as such: > > "Time, whichever way defined by man, is not required for nature > > to function or progress." > > > Thus if we define a "time" standard as such processes (for example the > > rate of atomic clocks), and if all such processes happen to be equally > > slowed down due to some cause (as you admit to be possible), why do > > you object to calling that a slowdown of "time"? > > > It appears that you are just degrading this to a disagreement about > > words. > > > Harald- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Harald, I am trying to be precise. Nature does not know or use time; > only humans do. Instead, nature uses change in a timeless way without > remembering the status before the change or planning the status after > the change. As time does not exist, it cannot slow down or speed up. > However, the rate of change can vary. Our failure to differentiate > between time and change leads to difficulties but our concepts of time > make it possible for us to express change quantitatively. > > Peter Riedt Peter, I largely agree with Inertial on this. To make the point in another way, I'll simply replace your argument about "time" with the same argument about "temperature", as that is a similar human concept based on nature: "Nature does not know or use temperature; only humans do. Instead, nature uses heat in a temperature-less way without knowing its status or planning any temperatures. As temperature does not exist, it cannot go up or down. However, the level of heat can vary. Our failure to differentiate between temperature and heat leads to difficulties but our concepts of temperature make it possible for us to express heat quantitatively. That is roughly how your argumentation looks to me. Does that make sense to you? I am now dure that it's just an argument about words. Harald
From: PD on 23 Jun 2010 09:11 On Jun 22, 7:40 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Jun 22, 5:24 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 4:39 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On Jun 20, 2:17 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 19, 7:51 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 18, 11:19 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 4:14 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 1:30 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > > Thomas, clocks divide a period of 24 hours into 3600 minutes or > > > > > > > 86400 seconds or > > > > > > > smaller divisions using a mechanical process such as a pendulum > > > > > > > swing that is governed > > > > > > > by the law of inertia. They do as you say count something that > > > > > > > occurs repeatedly but there is > > > > > > > no timekeeping by nature including forces or laws that vary the > > > > > > > rate of time. > > > > > > > Here you confuse (on purpose?) a human concept ("time") with a > > > > > > physical instrument (a clock). Do you claim that inertia and forces do > > > > > > not affect clock rate? Evidence shows otherwise. > > > > > > Harald, no confusion here. The clock is a device to measure time > > > > > according to > > > > > human concepts and requirements. A clock does not equal time. Forces > > > > > affect > > > > > clock rates, i.e. the greater a gravitational attraction is, the > > > > > faster the weights > > > > > that drive a pendulum clock will descend. > > > > > > Peter Riedt > > > > > You have that backwards Peter. Increased gravity slows the rate of > > > > time. Increased velocity slows time. You are right, gravity alters the > > > > rate of time. > > > > Mathal, not at all. If I said that I was wrong. Gravity will affect > > > processes, devices (example clocks), substances and life forms but > > > not time. > > > > Peter Riedt > > > Peter, according to you (and me), "time" is a measure of progress of > > physical processes. As you put it: > > > "A unit of time is an > > arbitrary time interval established for practical human purposes and > > derived from and based on a repeatable cyclical physical process." > > > You also agree that "time" is just a human concept, based on the > > observation of such physical processes, and that we are free to define > > it as such: > > "Time, whichever way defined by man, is not required for nature > > to function or progress." > > > Thus if we define a "time" standard as such processes (for example the > > rate of atomic clocks), and if all such processes happen to be equally > > slowed down due to some cause (as you admit to be possible), why do > > you object to calling that a slowdown of "time"? > > > It appears that you are just degrading this to a disagreement about > > words. > > > Harald- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Harald, I am trying to be precise. Nature does not know or use time; > only humans do. Instead, nature uses change in a timeless way without > remembering the status before the change or planning the status after > the change. As time does not exist, it cannot slow down or speed up. > However, the rate of change can vary. Here is where you are making a philosophical statement. You are saying that time cannot change, but the laws of physics can, from instance to instance. I'm curious why you think the laws of physics would change. > Our failure to differentiate > between time and change leads to difficulties but our concepts of time > make it possible for us to express change quantitatively. > > Peter Riedt- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Peter Riedt on 24 Jun 2010 02:36
On Jun 23, 9:23 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 22, 4:39 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > Harald, I am trying to be precise. Nature does not know or use time; > > only humans do. > > Just as nature doesn't use length or mass etc. Yes. > > Instead, nature uses change in a timeless way without > > You can't have change without time Correct. I cannot have change without time but nature can. > > remembering the status before the change or planning the status after > > the change. > > Before and after means time For us, yes. For nature - irrelevant. > > As time does not exist, > > But you've just implied that it does .. you talk about before and after Before and after are human time concepts - not used by nature. > > it cannot slow down or speed up. > > Well. .time DOES exist, and so it can Neither. > > However, the rate of change can vary. Yes. > Which is what we call time Yes we do but nature does not. > > Our failure to differentiate > > between time and change leads to difficulties but our concepts of time > > make it possible for us to express change quantitatively. > > Explain how you can have time without change, or change without time? We cannot but time is irrelevant for nature. > It seems you're getting all worked up over what words to use .. and for some > reason do not like using the word time.- Hide quoted text - Inertial, you must separate human thinking from the nature of nature. Otherwise you impose our crutches on an entity we cannot and never will understand. What arrogance and ignorance. Peter Riedt |