A clock second is not a universal interval of time.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
Next: Simultaneity of Relativity
From: Y.Porat on 8 Oct 2009 07:02 On Oct 8, 12:34 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:c299e4b3-d1c4-47ab-b9a8-528b236c372e(a)31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Oct 8, 12:58 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:8d55d0f9-ba3c-44ac-a5fa-5616ecbc9601(a)31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Oct 7, 1:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:8b3b20da-1227-4a6c-a70e-a711599cffc6(a)g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Oct 6, 7:11 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >> >> >> A clock second is not a universal interval of time. > >> >> >> What does this mean? > >> >> > ------------------- > >> >> > it means that there is not at all > >> >> > a universal interval of time !! > > >> >> > time is an arbitrary human invention > >> >> > (not natures invention ) > >> >> > to describe relative motion to some arbitrary > >> >> > chosen MOTION REFERENCE !! > > >> >> > (it might be the suns or moons or your clock > >> >> > or atomic movement whatever ) > >> >> > it is a very useful human invention! > > >> >> Nicely put > > >> > -------------- > >> > thanks > >> > i hardly believe my eys > >> > didn Indetial agree with me?? > >> > how come you agree with a crackpot ?? > >> > that is not a prof of physics ?? (:-) > > >> I take every thing people say on its own merit. > > >> You do post a lot of crackpot nonsense, but sometimes you post something > >> valid. If so, I will happily agree with it. > > >> That is part of being honest. > > > -------------- > > it is not eboughto be honest though very important in physics and > > science specifically > > but you have as well > > to think physics > > and not only matheamtical formulas > > This is something you will have to learn > > > 2 > > you must understand that all we know > > is a drop in the bucket compared > > to all that lot that we miss in that 'bucket' > > Very true. Ignoring what we do know isn't a virtue though > > > not realizing it and keeping your 'smug phase' > > and thinking that all that is in our books > > is the last word --- > > is disastrous to advance of science > > Noone thinks we know it all. I doubt we every really will. > > > 3 > > btw > > do you know when did i got to that above insight about Time ??? > > it was about while i was 16 years old !!.... > > i had a teacher of physics that made me to like > > and admire physics ..... > > That is very admirable. > > > anyway > > it was **my own** insight not his .... > > Its not an uncommon one. Mankind has been dealing with issues such as "what > is time" for a long long time. > ------------------------ OHHHHH !!!now i see you claim now that my above insight about Time is** not new** ie precedent-ed ?? (:-) if so PLEASE SHOW US by documentation that IT IS PRECEDENT-ED !! TIA Y.Porat ------------------------------- > > btw > > i remember his first lesson of physics : > > he came into the class and asked us a question > > 'what is mass' ...??!! > > . > > and tortured us along one hour letting anyone in class to try and > > explain.... > > before he gave his answer ..... > > Bahahaha. > > > so please dont ask me what is my formal degree in physics (:-) ....... > > I wasn't intending to
From: Inertial on 8 Oct 2009 07:36 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4bfbc576-8077-485c-aef2-6c7ab708eab2(a)p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 8, 12:34 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:c299e4b3-d1c4-47ab-b9a8-528b236c372e(a)31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Oct 8, 12:58 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:8d55d0f9-ba3c-44ac-a5fa-5616ecbc9601(a)31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Oct 7, 1:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:8b3b20da-1227-4a6c-a70e-a711599cffc6(a)g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Oct 6, 7:11 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> A clock second is not a universal interval of time. >> >> >> >> What does this mean? >> >> >> > ------------------- >> >> >> > it means that there is not at all >> >> >> > a universal interval of time !! >> >> >> >> > time is an arbitrary human invention >> >> >> > (not natures invention ) >> >> >> > to describe relative motion to some arbitrary >> >> >> > chosen MOTION REFERENCE !! >> >> >> >> > (it might be the suns or moons or your clock >> >> >> > or atomic movement whatever ) >> >> >> > it is a very useful human invention! >> >> >> >> Nicely put >> >> >> > -------------- >> >> > thanks >> >> > i hardly believe my eys >> >> > didn Indetial agree with me?? >> >> > how come you agree with a crackpot ?? >> >> > that is not a prof of physics ?? (:-) >> >> >> I take every thing people say on its own merit. >> >> >> You do post a lot of crackpot nonsense, but sometimes you post >> >> something >> >> valid. If so, I will happily agree with it. >> >> >> That is part of being honest. >> >> > -------------- >> > it is not eboughto be honest though very important in physics and >> > science specifically >> > but you have as well >> > to think physics >> > and not only matheamtical formulas >> >> This is something you will have to learn >> >> > 2 >> > you must understand that all we know >> > is a drop in the bucket compared >> > to all that lot that we miss in that 'bucket' >> >> Very true. Ignoring what we do know isn't a virtue though >> >> > not realizing it and keeping your 'smug phase' >> > and thinking that all that is in our books >> > is the last word --- >> > is disastrous to advance of science >> >> Noone thinks we know it all. I doubt we every really will. >> >> > 3 >> > btw >> > do you know when did i got to that above insight about Time ??? >> > it was about while i was 16 years old !!.... >> > i had a teacher of physics that made me to like >> > and admire physics ..... >> >> That is very admirable. >> >> > anyway >> > it was **my own** insight not his .... >> >> Its not an uncommon one. Mankind has been dealing with issues such as >> "what >> is time" for a long long time. >> ------------------------ > OHHHHH !!!now i see > you claim now that my above insight about Time is** not new** Of course it is not > ie precedent-ed ?? (:-) > if so > PLEASE SHOW US by documentation that IT IS PRECEDENT-ED !! Oh gawd .. not this AGAIN. Try wikipedia for a start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time .... 'time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[5] and Immanuel Kant,[6][7] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.' 'Immanuel Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, described time as an a priori intuition that allows us (together with the other a priori intuition, space) to comprehend sense experience.[26] With Kant, neither space nor time are conceived as substances, but rather both are elements of a systematic mental framework that necessarily structures the experiences of any rational agent, or observing subject.' 'In 5th century BC Greece, Antiphon the Sophist, in a fragment preserved from his chief work On Truth held that: "Time is not a reality (hypostasis), but a concept (no�ma) or a measure (metron)." Parmenides went further, maintaining that time, motion, and change were illusions, leading to the paradoxes of his follower Zeno.[28] Time as illusion is also a common theme in Buddhist thought,[29] and some modern philosophers have carried on with this theme. J. M. E. McTaggart's 1908 The Unreality of Time, for example, argues that time is unreal (see also The flow of time).' Man has been dealing with questions such as 'what is time' 'what is space' for hundreds of years. Your arrogance that your simplistic notion is something new is mind-boggling. It may well have been new for you at the time, but don't kid yourself that noone else had thought of that and more before and after.
From: Y.Porat on 8 Oct 2009 08:22 On Oct 8, 1:36 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:4bfbc576-8077-485c-aef2-6c7ab708eab2(a)p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Oct 8, 12:34 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:c299e4b3-d1c4-47ab-b9a8-528b236c372e(a)31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Oct 8, 12:58 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:8d55d0f9-ba3c-44ac-a5fa-5616ecbc9601(a)31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Oct 7, 1:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:8b3b20da-1227-4a6c-a70e-a711599cffc6(a)g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On Oct 6, 7:11 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> A clock second is not a universal interval of time. > >> >> >> >> What does this mean? > >> >> >> > ------------------- > >> >> >> > it means that there is not at all > >> >> >> > a universal interval of time !! > > >> >> >> > time is an arbitrary human invention > >> >> >> > (not natures invention ) > >> >> >> > to describe relative motion to some arbitrary > >> >> >> > chosen MOTION REFERENCE !! > > >> >> >> > (it might be the suns or moons or your clock > >> >> >> > or atomic movement whatever ) > >> >> >> > it is a very useful human invention! > > >> >> >> Nicely put > > >> >> > -------------- > >> >> > thanks > >> >> > i hardly believe my eys > >> >> > didn Indetial agree with me?? > >> >> > how come you agree with a crackpot ?? > >> >> > that is not a prof of physics ?? (:-) > > >> >> I take every thing people say on its own merit. > > >> >> You do post a lot of crackpot nonsense, but sometimes you post > >> >> something > >> >> valid. If so, I will happily agree with it. > > >> >> That is part of being honest. > > >> > -------------- > >> > it is not eboughto be honest though very important in physics and > >> > science specifically > >> > but you have as well > >> > to think physics > >> > and not only matheamtical formulas > > >> This is something you will have to learn > > >> > 2 > >> > you must understand that all we know > >> > is a drop in the bucket compared > >> > to all that lot that we miss in that 'bucket' > > >> Very true. Ignoring what we do know isn't a virtue though > > >> > not realizing it and keeping your 'smug phase' > >> > and thinking that all that is in our books > >> > is the last word --- > >> > is disastrous to advance of science > > >> Noone thinks we know it all. I doubt we every really will. > > >> > 3 > >> > btw > >> > do you know when did i got to that above insight about Time ??? > >> > it was about while i was 16 years old !!.... > >> > i had a teacher of physics that made me to like > >> > and admire physics ..... > > >> That is very admirable. > > >> > anyway > >> > it was **my own** insight not his .... > > >> Its not an uncommon one. Mankind has been dealing with issues such as > >> "what > >> is time" for a long long time. > >> ------------------------ > > OHHHHH !!!now i see > > you claim now that my above insight about Time is** not new** > > Of course it is not > > > ie precedent-ed ?? (:-) > > if so > > PLEASE SHOW US by documentation that IT IS PRECEDENT-ED !! > > Oh gawd .. not this AGAIN. > > Try wikipedia for a start > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time > > ... 'time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects > "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part > of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) > within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the > tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[5] and Immanuel Kant,[6][7] holds that time > is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can > it be travelled.' > > 'Immanuel Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, described time as an a > priori intuition that allows us (together with the other a priori intuition, > space) to comprehend sense experience.[26] With Kant, neither space nor time > are conceived as substances, but rather both are elements of a systematic > mental framework that necessarily structures the experiences of any rational > agent, or observing subject.' > > 'In 5th century BC Greece, Antiphon the Sophist, in a fragment preserved > from his chief work On Truth held that: "Time is not a reality (hypostasis), > but a concept (noêma) or a measure (metron)." Parmenides went further, > maintaining that time, motion, and change were illusions, leading to the > paradoxes of his follower Zeno.[28] Time as illusion is also a common theme > in Buddhist thought,[29] and some modern philosophers have carried on with > this theme. J. M. E. McTaggart's 1908 The Unreality of Time, for example, > argues that time is unreal (see also The flow of time).' > > Man has been dealing with questions such as 'what is time' 'what is space' > for hundreds of years. Your arrogance that your simplistic notion is > something new is mind-boggling. It may well have been new for you at the > time, but don't kid yourself that noone else had thought of that and more > before and after. ------------- you quoted a lot of phylosophy abut time whether there is an absolute time or if it is one of natures basics but i ddint see there my definition of time as **motion comparison to some arbitrary motion reference **!! and non of them stated that if all those motion references will change by the same rate (including the elctrons in your brain etc )--- NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO NOTICE IT !! (if i am not wrong that is unprecedented unles you bring quotes that it is precedented untill now you ddint bring quotes to that !!) and it means as well that time is not natures invention bot a human arbitrary definition a lot of your references are talking about the *universal time * ie something that is not human defined ! ie not dependent on human existence i showed among the others that here is no universal time that is sort of independent on human existence etc etc TIA Y.porat ------------------ -----------------------
From: kenseto on 8 Oct 2009 09:30 On Oct 7, 6:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:90f8a1e3-5260-4619-9804-d84ad16ab59d(a)p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Oct 7, 9:10 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:893458a8-b057-49d6-a6d1-7f488b9d65a6(a)b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Oct 7, 7:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 6, 7:11 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:> A clock second > >> >> is > >> >> not a universal interval of time. > >> >> > What does this mean? > > >> >> ------------------- > >> >> it means that there is not at all > >> >> a universal interval of time !! > > >> > No....it means that a clock second does not measure the same interval > >> > of universal time in different frames. > > >> What universal time? Does any clock measure universal time? How could > >> you > >> tell if it did? How can it be called a universal time if it doesn't > >> correspond to what we measure time to be? > > > Universal time (or absolute time) is the only time that exists. A > > clock second will contain a specific interval of universal time > > (absolute time) in A's frame and a clock second will cntain a > > different interval of universal time in B's frame. > > Doesn't work. > > > That's why clocks > > in different frame run at different rates. > > That doesn't explain mutual time dilation. There is no such thing as mutual time dilation. All clocks in relative motion are running at different rates. That's why the passage of a clock second in A's frame does not correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. > > > This is illustrated clearly > > by the GPS ststem...a GPS second had to redfined to have 4.15 more > > periods of the Cs 133 radiation than a ground clock second. The > > purpose of this redefinition is to make the GPS second contain the > > same anount of absolute time (universal time) as the ground clock > > second. > > GPS is mostly a GR effect. At different gravitational potentials time run > slower or faster. SR is a mutual effect on measurement due to motion. This shows me that you don't understand SR/GR. The GPS is a combined SR/GR effect. The gravitational effect is 45 us/day running fast and the velocity effect (SR effect) is 7 us/day running slow and the combined effect is 38 us/day running fast. This is converted to 4.15 more periods of Cs 133 radiation for the GPS second. This redefinition of the GPS second is to make the passage of a GPS second corresponds to the passage of a ground clokc second. Ken Seto > > You really need to learn your physics- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 8 Oct 2009 09:49
On Oct 7, 12:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > kens...(a)erinet.com wrote: > > On Oct 6, 5:37 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> You got yer cart before yer chicken, Seto. The propagation of > >> light existed long long before humings came up with some way to > >> measure it. > > >> This in important, Seto, so pay attention! Light is used as > >> a standard to DEFINE both units of distance and units of time. > >> So join the 20th and 21st centuries, Seto! > > > Wormy using the speed of light to define units of distance and time is > > circular. > > That's you opinion (and incorrect at that), Seto. That's not just my opinion.....the speed of light is a circular definition as follows: 1 light-second/1 second. This means that the speed of light can be anything you want. This means that I can walk at a speed of c as follows: 1 walk meter = 1/299,792,458 walk second. Therefore my walking speed is 299,792,458 walk-meters/1 second. > > Ref:http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html > > Unit of time - second > "The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation > corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of > the ground state of the cesium 133 atom". > > Seto--This definition has nothing to so with length! Sure it got everything to do with length.....the current definition for length is: 1 meter = 1/299,792,458 light second. > > Unit of length - meter > "The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during > a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second". So the definition for a unit of time also defines the unit of length ....Right? > > So, Seto, as you can see, the definition of length uses the definition > of a second, but the definition of a second DOES NOT USE the definition > of length. Then tell me how did they measure the speed of light before the new definition for length based on the speed of light is estabvlished. Ken Seto |