Speed of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 26 Dec 2009 19:04 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5b346f59-142c-43de-9543-208e09be2187(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "moving reference frames" is closer to the truth than you might think. What changes is not the reference frame. What changes is the astronaut's relative length (i.e. length contraction). ============================================= You mean length expansion, surely? xi = x' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where x' = x-vt, the length. Dividing by something less than 1 INCREASES the quotient. Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "moving reference frames" is closer to utter bullshit than you hallucinate.
From: Evil's Toy on 26 Dec 2009 20:47 Ste wrote: > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on > earth? Time does not physically exist. It is mathematical concept to describe that something happens. Speed of happening is defined by machine called clock, which is based on time needed for Earth to make one revolution. So we synchronize on Earth revolution and we call that time. Greets -- http://maxa.homedns.org/
From: Ste on 26 Dec 2009 23:21 On 26 Dec, 15:15, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Dec 24, 3:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on > > earth? > > <<invariance with respect to time translation > gives the well-known law of conservation of energy>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications > > See also: > > E. Noether's Discovery of the Deep Connection > Between Symmetries and Conservation Laws > Authors: Nina Byershttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807044 I'm afraid I don't immediately understand how this relates to my question.
From: Ste on 26 Dec 2009 23:53 On 26 Dec, 23:02, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > e2b39ba1-e151-4bd3-8adb-b5f35af59...(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com > > > > > > > On 26 Dec, 09:09, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:28:03 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>>news:ee5c4ca0-faf6-46a8-8565-c830f685d3b9(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.... > >>>> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on > >>>> earth? > > >>> There is no such thing as a rate of time, as 'rate' implies change over > >>> time. That is a problem with the English language (and I suspect most if > >>> not all human languages). > > >>> But one can compare the rates of ticking of clocks (which measures time) and > >>> compare the rates in different locations or at different relative > >>> velocities. > > >>> There is no absolute measure of 'rate' of time (whatever that means) > > >> Time flows at 1 second (t1) per second (t2) > > > So in other words, time can only be expressed as a factor relative to > > some other frame. In other words, it is *impossible* to prove a > > forward flow of time - the forward flow of time is an axiom of the > > human mind, not a measurable quality of the physical world. Just to clarify, the above text is not mine, even though you attribute it to me. > In physics and in engineering (and in fact in every day life), > time is defined as what is read on clocks, as you can see in > http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html > Armchair philosophers might have different ideas, but this is > a physics newsgroup. I'm an engineer to my very core. If you can't explain physics to me, then there is probably a shortfall in your understanding of the world. > Since counting events is what happens in a clock, our clocks > are designed to run forward, so time is defined to run forward. > So indeed "the forward flow of time is an axiom of the human > mind", if you wish. > But it *is* a measurable quality of the physical world - by > definition. I never said time isn't a measurable quantity - any more than I'm saying length isn't a measurable quantity. I said *the forward flow* of time is an unnecessary axiom. And like all unnecessary axioms, in the end they turn out to obstruct proper understanding. By incorporating a flow of time into physics, people appear to have listened to Einstein's brilliant insight about relativity, and then they immediately imparted absolutism into the equations again with "constants", which expresses itself here as "the constant forward flow of time". It's a bit like "liberals" who react harshly against anyone who doesn't share liberal values; they are simply absolutists in liberal's clothing. And I'm afraid many physicists appear to be absolutists in relativists' clothing.
From: Ste on 26 Dec 2009 23:58
On 27 Dec, 00:04, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:5b346f59-142c-43de-9543-208e09be2187(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "moving reference > frames" is closer to the truth than you might think. What changes is > not the reference frame. What changes is the astronaut's relative > length (i.e. length contraction). > ============================================= > You mean length expansion, surely? > xi = x' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where x' = x-vt, the length. > > Dividing by something less than 1 INCREASES the quotient. > Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "moving reference > frames" is closer to utter bullshit than you hallucinate. You forgot to adjust the speed of light. |