Define a clock
AllYou!
what are the limitations of this axiom?
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:8eidnUB2Za2...@conversent.net...
> What is a clock? If time is what a clock says it is, then what's clock, and
> what are the limitations of this axiom?
Use your heart beat as a clock. Call the beats "time".
... wait, let me SPELL IT OUT MORE CLEARLY:
Use your heart beat. Call the heart "clock".
Call the beats "time".
Do experiments with falling stones.
Find that distance covered is proportional to time squared.
Define velocity. Find that velocity is proportional to time.
Define acceleration. Find that acceleration is constant.
Talk with Galileo, the inventor of what *Allyou!* call myth.
Don't you have a name, coward?
Dirk Vdm
AllYou!
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:VKE6d.261106$NU3.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:8eidnUB2Za2...@conversent.net...
> > What is a clock? If time is what a clock says it is, then what's clock,
and
> > what are the limitations of this axiom?
>
> Use your heart beat as a clock. Call the beats "time".
A series of regular events is time? How original!
Your non-response and ad homonym is noted.
--
Dirk Science:
1) Make up a myth
2) Use the myth to assist your feeble mind
3) Find a mechanism
4) Decree, with no justification, that the mechanism can track the myth
5) Watch the mechanism function
6) Use the operation of the mechanism as proof that the myth is real.
FrediFizzx
and
| what are the limitations of this axiom?
I think that time is what you get when you compare at least two motions.
Does a clock compare two motions?
FrediFizzx
Bill Hobba
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:VKE6d.261106$NU3.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> news:8eidnUB2Za2...@conversent.net...
> > > What is a clock? If time is what a clock says it is, then what's
clock,
> and
> > > what are the limitations of this axiom?
> >
> > Use your heart beat as a clock. Call the beats "time".
>
> A series of regular events is time? How original!
So you already know what time is. As I have pointed out before it is a
count of a regular process. It is obvious your are simply a crank who
wishes to participate in semantic quibbling.
>
> Your non-response and ad homonym is noted.
> --
> Dirk Science:
> 1) Make up a myth
> 2) Use the myth to assist your feeble mind
> 3) Find a mechanism
> 4) Decree, with no justification, that the mechanism can track the myth
> 5) Watch the mechanism function
> 6) Use the operation of the mechanism as proof that the myth is real.
Your science:
1) Refuse to accept standard definitions and create a straw man.
2) Use the straw man to assist your feeble mind
3) Fail to understand that homogeneity in time means exactly the same
process must take exactly the same amount of time.
4) Decree, with no justification, that the standard definition has problems.
5) Despite experiments with diffenrltly constructed clocks that show they
remain in sync once synced, sometimes wither extremely high accuracy, claim
it is of no impotence.
6) Fail to demonstrate the use of any cogitative abilities whatever.
In short your science demonstrates you are a crank.
Bill
jahn
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2s0mjnF...@uni-berlin.de...
One of the most fundamental time relative processes is Faraday's law. AFAIK that requries a minimun of two charged particles in
motion, lending some support for your notion.
Kind regards,
Sue...
Martin Hogbin
> what are the limitations of this axiom?
Everyone knows what a clock is.
Martin Hogbin
FrediFizzx
news:2s0nhaF...@uni-berlin.de...
A simple clock is one rotation of the earth on its axis. Marks off one day
of time. Of course this is comparing its motion with that of the Sun which
is "motionless" with respect to the rotation. At least for practical
purposes we can say it is motionless. But we are still comparing two
things. Now, I guess an important concept here is the *use*. *We are
comparing two things*. So we get into the whole concept that a clock is not
a clock without the observer.
FrediFizzx
Tom Roberts
> What is a clock?
A mechanism capable of an accurately repetetive motion, plus a counter
of the repetitions.
Of course one must specify how precisely the repetitions truly repeat
each other. To do this we normally use multiple clocks and compare them
to each other. This is most useful when the different clocks use
differnt technologies. Over the centuries this has permitted us to
characterize clocks by their intrinsic accuracy. So the earth's rotation
is vastly more accurate than the period of a pendulum, but not nearly as
accurate as an atomic clock. Etc.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Eugene Shubert
> and what are the limitations of this axiom?
Here's a simple paper that defines a clock and derives special relativity from it.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eugene Shubert
Eugene Shubert
A Shubertian clock is defined by comparing motions.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eugene Shubert
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:sp-dnRId_cA...@conversent.net...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:VKE6d.261106$NU3.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> news:8eidnUB2Za2...@conversent.net...
> > > What is a clock? If time is what a clock says it is, then what's clock,
> and
> > > what are the limitations of this axiom?
> >
> > Use your heart beat as a clock. Call the beats "time".
>
> A series of regular events is time? How original!
Who used the word regular?
You are cheating again.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:%HF6d.8534$5O5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> news:sp-dnRId_cA...@conversent.net...
> >
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> > in message news:VKE6d.261106$NU3.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> > >
> > > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > news:8eidnUB2Za2...@conversent.net...
> > > > What is a clock? If time is what a clock says it is, then what's
> clock,
> > and
> > > > what are the limitations of this axiom?
> > >
> > > Use your heart beat as a clock. Call the beats "time".
> >
> > A series of regular events is time? How original!
>
> So you already know what time is. As I have pointed out before it is a
> count of a regular process.
Well, it doesn't even need to be "regular". You can simply *define*
regularity this way ;-)
He'll never understand it. He's here to troll, just like Androcles
and Wilson and the likes.
Dirk Vdm
jahn
globally *modified* would affect the outcome of all events, then
clocks seem a tool, reserved for observers. This is in contrast
to your CPU clock, which might be more appropriately called a
pace-maker. Changing the crystal in your watch has to be
considerd differently from changing the crystal in your
computer. Your business-day might proceed fairly normally with a
cranky wrist-watch but no way will a computer get it's work done
on time with a slow "pace-maker".
That said, we would have to consider the earth both clock and
pace-maker. An observer with a distorted view of the earth, say,
an archer on Jupiter might strke me instead of you with an arrow
because of the distortion, but neither of us is likely to change
our business day because of the archer's notion of time. For us,
the earth is a pace-maker, for the archer it is a clock. If the
archer understands the distortion, and applies "time windage",
then his arrow should find it's mark.
The archer might notice that we consume about 84 meals for each
orbit of the earth's moon. If by some dastardly means he can slow
the moon's orbit by half, he will know it is not a pace-maker,
when our meal rate doubles according to his lunar clock.
Observers however, don't have to be human. The flights of two
projectiles are processes "paced" by the accelerating force. The
debris field from their collission and it's spatial relationship
to the firing point can stand witness to their flight speed...
whether anyone is looking or not. So... a force acting to
accelerate a mass sounds a lot like the pendulum in a clock, but
for colliding projectiles, it is also a pace-maker.
Some better terms to use might be:
Causal relationship
Reference process (formerly clock)
Pace-maker
Of course, the blurring of those terms throught the use of the
word clock, is the source of most of the confusion with
Einstein's relativity.
I just did a string search on this post and this is this first
occurance of the word ---> TIME <-----
yet we have defined it much less ambiguously than Einstein did in
SR.
LOL
Should we define a clock? Probably not. How about renaming it?
;-)
Kind regards,
Sue...
Bill Hobba
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:%HF6d.8534$5O5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > news:sp-dnRId_cA...@conversent.net...
> > >
> > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
> > > in message news:VKE6d.261106$NU3.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> > > >
> > > > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > > news:8eidnUB2Za2...@conversent.net...
> > > > > What is a clock? If time is what a clock says it is, then what's
> > clock,
> > > and
> > > > > what are the limitations of this axiom?
> > > >
> > > > Use your heart beat as a clock. Call the beats "time".
> > >
> > > A series of regular events is time? How original!
> >
> > So you already know what time is. As I have pointed out before it is a
> > count of a regular process.
>
> Well, it doesn't even need to be "regular". You can simply *define*
> regularity this way ;-)
True - but this bozo is not at the stage to understand subtleties like that
(the distressing thing is it is not really a subtlety - it is just so damn
obvious). You need to crawl before you can walk - it is just that any
normal person would have seen it immediately without even going through the
crawl stage.
> He'll never understand it. He's here to troll, just like Androcles
> and Wilson and the likes.
Sure.
Thanks
Bill
AllYou!
"Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:%HF6d.8534$5O5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> news:sp-dnRId_cA...@conversent.net...
> >
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
> > in message news:VKE6d.261106$NU3.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> > >
> > > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > news:8eidnUB2Za2...@conversent.net...
> > > > What is a clock? If time is what a clock says it is, then what's
> clock,
> > and
> > > > what are the limitations of this axiom?
> > >
> > > Use your heart beat as a clock. Call the beats "time".
> >
> > A series of regular events is time? How original!
>
> So you already know what time is.
Yes, a tool inveted by man used to order events.
> As I have pointed out before it is a count of a regular process. It is
obvious your are simply a crank who wishes to participate in semantic
quibbling.
Not at all. I'm simply persuing the notion that time dilation is a myth.
That's not to say that Relativity is a myth, but rather that time does not
exist as a property of nature. Why is it so hard you you to get that's my
sincere point? Is that your whole world would crumble if I'm right, or is
it that you have no real responces to my questions and assertions and so
you've got to resort to personal attacks? Which is it?
> > Your non-response and ad homonym is noted.
> > --
> > Dirk Science:
> > 1) Make up a myth
> > 2) Use the myth to assist your feeble mind
> > 3) Find a mechanism
> > 4) Decree, with no justification, that the mechanism can track the myth
> > 5) Watch the mechanism function
> > 6) Use the operation of the mechanism as proof that the myth is real.
>
> Your science:
> 1) Refuse to accept standard definitions and create a straw man.
Sounds like every great scientist or explorer. Don't accept what your told
on faith alone. Demand evidence. That's what I'm doing. I'm simply asking
for evidence of the existence of time. What's very telling is that you guys
keep telling me how time is defined by man every time I suggest that time is
an invention of man. Based upon this fact, I really don't know what your
argument is. But anyway, what you said is not true. I accept that time
is a count of a regular process. What you won't accept is the obvious fact
from this definition that time simply does not exist as a natural phenomena.
> 2) Use the straw man to assist your feeble mind
What staw man? Ohhhhhh, you mean that time is a definition only? It seems
we both agree on that one.
> 3) Fail to understand that homogeneity in time means exactly the same
> process must take exactly the same amount of time.
I understand that perfectly. See? That's where your prejudice concerning
me has clouded your judgment. In your zeal to discredit me, you've simply
created and assigned an argument to me I've never made. The exact same
process will move the exact same distance at the exact same velocity. The
relationship of those two properties of nature is defined as time, and so I
accept your statement.
> 4) Decree, with no justification, that the standard definition has
problems.
Where did I ever do that? You gave a defintion of time for the first *time*
above, and I fully accept it.
> 5) Despite experiments with diffenrltly constructed clocks that show they
> remain in sync once synced, sometimes wither extremely high accuracy,
claim
> it is of no impotence.
More lies. Show me just once where I ever even implied anything of the
sort. Again, you're so anxious to categorize me in with a bunch of others
who have made those kinds of ridiculous arguments that you're blinded by
this bigotry to the fact that I've never done any such thing. I fully
accept this latest statement of yours. Again, if you have any kind of honor
whatsoever, you'll post a direct quote from me where I claimed this, or
you'll apologize. Otherwise, you're just a liar.
> 6) Fail to demonstrate the use of any cogitative abilities whatever.
That may be going a bit far, although I've never claimed to be an educated
person. I just never realized the vitriol and hate that exists for people
of the same educational backgroud. However, I'll not take a back seat to
the likes of you in my abilities to think and reason.
> In short your science demonstrates you are a crank.
Who's the crank? You can give no evidence whatsoever of the existence of
time except as a man-made definition, and yet you claim I'm the crank.
That's classic.
AllYou!
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:%HF6d.8534$5O5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > news:sp-dnRId_cA...@conversent.net...
> > >
> > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
> > > in message news:VKE6d.261106$NU3.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> > > >
> > > > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > > news:8eidnUB2Za2...@conversent.net...
> > > > > What is a clock? If time is what a clock says it is, then what's
> > clock,
> > > and
> > > > > what are the limitations of this axiom?
> > > >
> > > > Use your heart beat as a clock. Call the beats "time".
> > >
> > > A series of regular events is time? How original!
> >
> > So you already know what time is. As I have pointed out before it is a
> > count of a regular process.
>
> Well, it doesn't even need to be "regular". You can simply *define*
> regularity this way ;-)
So now you guys can't even agree on a defintion of something that's so
clearly a fact? LOL!
> He'll never understand it. He's here to troll, just like Androcles
> and Wilson and the likes.
I'm glad to see that you guys are having a great circle jerk here. After
all, you need the refuge of someone who buys into your pathetic sense of
discourse. So tell me, where's your evidence of the existence of time?
Ohhhhh, that's right, you don't need evidence, it's a fact.
LOL!
AllYou!
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:415baf14$0$10397$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> >
> > "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:%HF6d.8534$5O5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >
> > > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > > news:sp-dnRId_cA...@conversent.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> wrote
> > > > in message news:VKE6d.261106$NU3.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> > > > >
> > > > > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:8eidnUB2Za2...@conversent.net...
> > > > > > What is a clock? If time is what a clock says it is, then
what's
> > > clock,
> > > > and
> > > > > > what are the limitations of this axiom?
> > > > >
> > > > > Use your heart beat as a clock. Call the beats "time".
> > > >
> > > > A series of regular events is time? How original!
> > >
> > > So you already know what time is. As I have pointed out before it is
a
> > > count of a regular process.
> >
> > Well, it doesn't even need to be "regular". You can simply *define*
> > regularity this way ;-)
>
> True -
And the circle jerk continues. So where's your evidence of the existence of
time? Ohhhh, that's right, it's just a definition. So how can a definition
dilate?
--
"Life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death."
--Auntie Mame, by Patrick Dennis
AllYou!
I'll buy that fully. So is it a real property of nature or just an
invention of man?
AllYou!
I think time is a standard motion and it's used to compare other series of
events.
Ken Seto
OK so the atomic clock is the most accurate clock we have. But how do
we know if a clock second of the atomic clock will have the same
"duration or time content" in different frames??? IOW, how do we know
that a tick of the atomic clock represents the same "duration" in
different frames???
Ken Seto
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:<IOL6d.1733$5b1....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
>>AllYou! wrote:
>>>What is a clock?
>>A mechanism capable of an accurately repetetive motion, plus a counter
>>of the repetitions.
>>
>
> OK so the atomic clock is the most accurate clock we have.
Actually some pulsars seem to be better than atomic clocks. But they are
of limited use....
> But how do
> we know if a clock second of the atomic clock will have the same
> "duration or time content" in different frames???
We know this because theories which assume it are validated in zillions
of experiments. It is also in essence a definition of what "duartion of
time content" is, in the context of the modern dictum to only discuss
what can be measured.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Oriel36
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:VKE6d.261106$NU3.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> news:8eidnUB2Za2...@conversent.net...
> > > What is a clock? If time is what a clock says it is, then what's clock,
> and
> > > what are the limitations of this axiom?
> >
> > Use your heart beat as a clock. Call the beats "time".
>
> A series of regular events is time? How original!
The principles of the equable 24 hour clock day and subsequently
equable hours,minutes and seconds are simple enough to
understand.Unfortunately physicists adopt the WRONG value for axial
rotation even though the principles for axial rotation and the 24 hour
clock day have been known for centuries through the Equation of Time
correction.
>
> Your non-response and ad homonym is noted.
What you received from Dirk was neither ad hominum nor a non
response,his reply is simply a symptom of an addiction every bit as
bad as a nicotene or heroin addiction.If you placed your hope on
theories that are so repugnant at such a basic level,you would
probably act the same way,in this respect Dirk deserves your pity as
do all who attempt to make things more complicated than they actually
are.
The principles behind the equable second,minute and hour and
subsequently the 24 hour clock are generated from the axial rotation
of the Earth through 360 degrees and the Equation of Time correction
which makes use of the Sun as a reference.The astronomers could check
whether their clocks kept a constant pace with axial rotation after
they applied the Equation of Time correction at noon.
The following 'fact' is the basis of every single error imaginable,it
is the minotaur in the scientific edifice and the 'fact' has become an
intolerable burden on all,Newtonian aetherist and relativist alike.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
The horror in watching men witness and absorb the error rather than
dealing with it far exceeds any known historical comparisons in terms
of idealistic or intellectual holocausts.It is not only bad,it is
profoundly bad and has been that way for over a century,without
anything approaching intelletual courage may our children forgive us
for what we did'nt do rather than what we've done.
Thomas Jones
news:%HF6d.8534$5O5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> news:sp-dnRId_cA...@conversent.net...
> >
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
> > in message news:VKE6d.261106$NU3.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> > >
> > > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > news:8eidnUB2Za2...@conversent.net...
> > > > What is a clock? If time is what a clock says it is, then what's
> clock,
> > and
> > > > what are the limitations of this axiom?
> > >
> > > Use your heart beat as a clock. Call the beats "time".
> >
> > A series of regular events is time? How original!
>
> So you already know what time is. As I have pointed out before it is a
> count of a regular process. It is obvious your are simply a crank who
> wishes to participate in semantic quibbling.
>
I assume this is the definition of regular as used in sentence above?
regular - recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed or uniform intervals
<a regular income> <a regular churchgoer>
This means you are using a term to define time that inherently has time
associated with its meaning. Isn't that a circular definition?
> >
> > Your non-response and ad homonym is noted.
> > --
> > Dirk Science:
> > 1) Make up a myth
> > 2) Use the myth to assist your feeble mind
> > 3) Find a mechanism
> > 4) Decree, with no justification, that the mechanism can track the myth
> > 5) Watch the mechanism function
> > 6) Use the operation of the mechanism as proof that the myth is real.
>
> Your science:
> 1) Refuse to accept standard definitions and create a straw man.
> 2) Use the straw man to assist your feeble mind
> 3) Fail to understand that homogeneity in time means exactly the same
> process must take exactly the same amount of time.
> 4) Decree, with no justification, that the standard definition has
problems.
> 5) Despite experiments with diffenrltly constructed clocks that show they
> remain in sync once synced, sometimes wither extremely high accuracy,
claim
> it is of no impotence.
> 6) Fail to demonstrate the use of any cogitative abilities whatever.
>
> In short your science demonstrates you are a crank.
>
> Bill
>
>
Thomas
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind."
--Le Marquis de Sade
AllYou!
"Thomas Jones" <tjo...@qx.net> wrote in message
news:FOqdnVW4Nac...@qx.net...
> "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:%HF6d.8534$5O5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > news:sp-dnRId_cA...@conversent.net...
> > >
> > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> wrote
> > > in message news:VKE6d.261106$NU3.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> > > >
> > > > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > > news:8eidnUB2Za2...@conversent.net...
> > > > > What is a clock? If time is what a clock says it is, then what's
> > clock,
> > > and
> > > > > what are the limitations of this axiom?
> > > >
> > > > Use your heart beat as a clock. Call the beats "time".
> > >
> > > A series of regular events is time? How original!
> >
> > So you already know what time is. As I have pointed out before it is a
> > count of a regular process. It is obvious your are simply a crank who
> > wishes to participate in semantic quibbling.
> >
>
> I assume this is the definition of regular as used in sentence above?
>
> regular - recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed or uniform
intervals
> <a regular income> <a regular churchgoer>
>
> This means you are using a term to define time that inherently has time
> associated with its meaning. Isn't that a circular definition?
That's a great point!
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:7bKdndEWbP0...@conversent.net...
>
> "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2s0mjnF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > news:8eidnUB2Za2...@conversent.net...
> > | What is a clock? If time is what a clock says it is, then what's clock,
> > and
> > | what are the limitations of this axiom?
> >
> > I think that time is what you get when you compare at least two motions.
> > Does a clock compare two motions?
>
> I'll buy that fully.
Of course you buy it fully. It is junk.
> So is it a real property of nature or just an
> invention of man?
It is what we read on our clocks.
How difficult is that?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:O9idneV3wKN...@conversent.net...
The sound of Spaceman:
http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:zJSdnVhItO3...@conversent.net...
Allyou! has found a great point!
Bravo!
Dirk Vdm
AllYou!
Who said it's difficult? It just doesn't answer the question, you fucking
moron. Can't you read?
AllYou!
And I didn't have to be here long to find an asshole like you, you pathetic,
bitter old man.
AllYou!
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> babbled
in message news:sZV6d.261814$cP5.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> It is what we read on our clocks [and a clock is defined
> as a mechanism capable of accurately repetitive
> motion, plus a counter of the repetitions]
Time in S' as compared to S:
[T= T'*g]
Time on a linear clock in S' as compared to it's twin in S as both observed
from S:
[T = g*(T'+vL'/c^2)]
Daniel Weston
difficult to understand how such an incorrect definition could obtain so
much popularity. This becomes clear when there is provided a black box
that meets that definition absolutely but cannot be used as a clock.
It is easy enough to make a device that contains periodicy and that
counts such periodicy. Assume you are presented with a black box that
has periodicy and has achieved a count of 1,467,982 since it was turned
on. What does this tell you as to time? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
The definition is deeply suspect.
A timepiece (clock) should be defined as 1) predictable motion + 2) a
translator. The translator translates predictable motion into
a rotational day, or some fraction thereof.
1) periodic motion + counter = clock, is FALSE.
2) predictable motion + translator = clock, is TRUE.
Thomas Jones
in message news:sZV6d.261814$cP5.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
Cool, That is an easy to understand definition for time. Now define clocks.
Thomas
Thomas Jones
news:4809-415...@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net...
I'm not sure what you mean by predicatble motion in this definition.
Thomas
p.s. The word you were looking for was periodicity.
AllYou!
"Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4809-415...@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net...
So how inaccurate would it be to say that a clock requires a velocity
through a distance? Is this not the definition of motion?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Thomas Jones" <tjo...@qx.net> wrote in message news:PK6dncw2x6y...@qx.net...
Clocks are all around us. Open your eyes and look
around.
I hope I don't have to define "eyes" and "to look around".
See also my first reply on this thread.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:SZmdnRl1SYz...@conversent.net...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> babbled
> in message news:sZV6d.261814$cP5.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
> > It is what we read on our clocks [and a clock is defined
> > as a mechanism capable of accurately repetitive
> > motion, plus a counter of the repetitions]
He fuck, I did not write this.
You are cheating - again.
> Time in S' as compared to S:
> [T= T'*g]
Wrong already.
Dirk Vdm
Daniel Weston
"predictable motion" rather than "periodic motion". The reason is
because all periodic motion is predictable, but all predictable motion
is not periodic.
For example, candle timepieces, and water flow timepieces, do not
contain periodic motion, but rather predictable motion. As the candle
melts from point A to point B, the motion is not periodic, but it is
predictable sufficiently to use as a timepiece. The same can be said
for water clocks which use flowing water. The same could also be said
for river flowing and air flow if it came in predictable circumstances.
Candle clocks and water clocks have been used for many more years than
our wind- up clocks. Why define a timepiece that excludes the
timepieces of greatest longstanding?
AllYou!
> > Cool, That is an easy to understand definition for time. Now define
clocks.
>
> Clocks are all around us. Open your eyes and look
> around.
> I hope I don't have to define "eyes" and "to look around".
> See also my first reply on this thread.
LOL! You're a joke and a coward.
For all of your bravado, you refuse to respond. Others have done so quite
willingly and quite well. For you to continue your mantra of *time is what
we read on our clocks* but then refuse to define a clock makes you a joke.
You refuse because you know where it will lead. You're just like that other
joker who used to hang out in here and when cornered, he'd resort to the
same crap. When asked to define anything, all he would say is *look
around*.
--
Time in S' as compared to S:
[T= T'*g]
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:6dqdnePNHv5...@conversent.net...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:GeY6d.261996$4G4.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "Thomas Jones" <tjo...@qx.net> wrote in message
> news:PK6dncw2x6y...@qx.net...
>
> > > Cool, That is an easy to understand definition for time. Now define
> clocks.
> >
> > Clocks are all around us. Open your eyes and look
> > around.
> > I hope I don't have to define "eyes" and "to look around".
> > See also my first reply on this thread.
>
> LOL!
Spaceman imitator?
http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/
Dirk Vdm
AllYou!
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:xgY6d.261999$_Y5.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:SZmdnRl1SYz...@conversent.net...
> >
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
babbled
> > in message news:sZV6d.261814$cP5.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > > It is what we read on our clocks [and a clock is defined
> > > as a mechanism capable of accurately repetitive
> > > motion, plus a counter of the repetitions]
>
> He fuck, I did not write this.
> You are cheating - again.
That's why I used the brackets, asswhipe. The fact that I had to insert a
definition for you is proof of your cowardice. You refuse to give one for
yourself. LOL!
> > Time in S' as compared to S:
> > [T= T'*g]
>
> Wrong already.
Non-response noted (again). You really are the same chicken shit I
remember. I've got you so discombobulated that you now refuse to post
anything of substance at all. You're a fucking joke.
--
Time in S' as compared to S:
[T= T'*g]
Time on a linear clock in S' as compared to it's twin in S as both observed
from S:
[T = g*(T'+vL'/c^2)]
ROTFLMAOWPIMP
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:TcudnRNRkbt...@conversent.net...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:xgY6d.261999$_Y5.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> news:SZmdnRl1SYz...@conversent.net...
> > >
> > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> babbled
> > > in message news:sZV6d.261814$cP5.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> > >
> > > > It is what we read on our clocks [and a clock is defined
> > > > as a mechanism capable of accurately repetitive
> > > > motion, plus a counter of the repetitions]
> >
> > He fuck, I did not write this.
> > You are cheating - again.
>
> That's why I used the brackets, asswhipe. The fact that I had to insert a
> definition for you is proof of your cowardice. You refuse to give one for
> yourself. LOL!
You finally made it
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cowardice.html
Congratulations with your first entry - unless of course you have
been listed under another false name already. It wouldn't surprise
me. Are you absolutely sure you're not an Harold Ensle in disguise?
Dirk Vdm
Tom Roberts
> It is easy enough to make a device that contains periodicy and that
> counts such periodicy. Assume you are presented with a black box that
> has periodicy and has achieved a count of 1,467,982 since it was turned
> on. What does this tell you as to time? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Not true -- it tells you that the box has been on for 1,467,982 ticks.
And you can use its ticks, whatever they may be, as a marking of time to
however accurate its internal mechanism is.
You are quibbling about units, that's all. To relate this box to the
units you are used to requires a comparison with a clock that is already
calibrated in those units.
BTW your examples of candles and water clocks were incomplete: they
indicate time by the repetition of (candle burning down a specific
distance), or (a specific amount of water flowing). As clocks they are
useless without this, and that makes them periodic (with a minor pun on
that word).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Daniel Weston
number is not a timepiece. If a black box shown to you has a count of
4,589, it is impossible for you to tell me the time of day, or how that
translates into a fraction of a daily rotation of the earth.
Einstein said numerous things about timepieces, but one thing that he
did point out was that a timepiece _compares_ the movement of the
timep[iece with the movement of earth's rotation. The black box in
question makes no such comparison. It is not a timepiece (clock).
You stated that the black box under consideration could be _made_ into a
timepiece. I agree but it is not a timepiece standing alone. Anything
that is periodic can be made into a clock by translating the periodic
motion into a comparison of earth's rotation or a fraction thereof.
Your post was factually correct but not refutational. You say that a
black box can be utilized in a clock device. That is correct. I say
that a black box standing alone is not a timepiece. That is also
correct.
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Tom: I said that a black box that gives you a periodic count of some
> number is not a timepiece. If a black box shown to you has a count of
> 4,589, it is impossible for you to tell me the time of day, or how that
> translates into a fraction of a daily rotation of the earth.
>
Who cares? If you're doing an experiment, you just need to know what
time it is relative to the start or other significant events in
the experiment.
John Anderson
Bill Hobba
> "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:%HF6d.8534$5O5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > news:sp-dnRId_cA...@conversent.net...
> > >
> > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> wrote
> > > in message news:VKE6d.261106$NU3.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> > > >
> > > > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > > news:8eidnUB2Za2...@conversent.net...
> > > > > What is a clock? If time is what a clock says it is, then what's
> > clock,
> > > and
> > > > > what are the limitations of this axiom?
> > > >
> > > > Use your heart beat as a clock. Call the beats "time".
> > >
> > > A series of regular events is time? How original!
> >
> > So you already know what time is. As I have pointed out before it is a
> > count of a regular process. It is obvious your are simply a crank who
> > wishes to participate in semantic quibbling.
> >
>
> I assume this is the definition of regular as used in sentence above?
>
> regular - recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed or uniform
intervals
> <a regular income> <a regular churchgoer>
>
> This means you are using a term to define time that inherently has time
> associated with its meaning. Isn't that a circular definition?
Nope. Its use here is 'recurring' meaning the same process happens again
and again. If you do no tike the use of 'regular' substitute 'recurring' or
'repeating'. Now what experiment shows is that for many practical purposes
frames attached to the earth are inertial (experimentally proving a frame is
inertial is a difficult issue which I will not go into here - we simply note
all experimental evidence we have is consistant with it so it is a
scientifically allowable assumption). A property of inertial frames is
homogeneity in time - that is the same experiment done at a different time
will give the same result. This means the time it takes for the process to
happen will be the same regardless of when it is done. Thus a count of the
number of times it occurs is a measure of time. The circularity involved
comes from the fact I have used an intuitive notion of time to deduce the
time it takes each process is the same - you can not measure it to find out
because this is the assumption you used to deduce the behavior of the
measuring device (and is one of the issues in experimentally determining if
a frame is inertial). While fairly obvious such is the case it must be
admitted I can not prove it. However science is concerned with the results
of experiments so we need a way out of the impasse. And the answer is
simple - we define time as what a clock measure ie as the count of a
recurring process. Thus no circularity is involved and we have a definition
that can be used in experiments.
As an aside we also make one further assumption to deal with non inertial
frames - it is called the clock postulate and is examined here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/clock.html.
The above may not be satisfactory to philosophy types but is all we need to
do science. This issue is examined further here -
http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
"Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4809-415...@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net...
> difficult to understand how such an incorrect definition could obtain so
> much popularity. This becomes clear when there is provided a black box
> that meets that definition absolutely but cannot be used as a clock.
Please describe such a black box and why it can not be used as a clock.
Bill
Bill Hobba
The inaccuracy has to with the fact clocks exist in which a precise velocity
is an ill defined concept due to QM eg the electrons in a cesium clock emit
radiation due to change in energy levels not velocity. What is required is
a repeatable recurring process - that is all - velocity need not have
anything to do with it. The accuracy of a clock has to do with a
statistical analysis of ensembles of them compared to others.
Bill
Bill Hobba
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:GeY6d.261996$4G4.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "Thomas Jones" <tjo...@qx.net> wrote in message
> news:PK6dncw2x6y...@qx.net...
>
> > > Cool, That is an easy to understand definition for time. Now define
> clocks.
> >
> > Clocks are all around us. Open your eyes and look
> > around.
> > I hope I don't have to define "eyes" and "to look around".
> > See also my first reply on this thread.
>
> LOL! You're a joke and a coward.
>
> For all of your bravado, you refuse to respond. Others have done so quite
> willingly and quite well. For you to continue your mantra of *time is
what
> we read on our clocks* but then refuse to define a clock makes you a joke.
Hey idiot. I 'defined' a clock a certain way to intuitively justify the
definition of time as what a clock reads. I also admitted my definition and
argument has no scientific value - it is simply an intuitive way of looking
at it. Dirk is correct - time is what clocks measure - end of story.
> You refuse because you know where it will lead. You're just like that
other
> joker who used to hang out in here and when cornered, he'd resort to the
> same crap. When asked to define anything, all he would say is *look
> around*.
In any explanation some things are accepted as given from which others
follow. The existence of clocks is a given. You are simply too stupid to
understand it.
Bill
Daniel Weston
"Who cares? If you're doing an experiment, you just need to know what
time it is relative to the start or other significant events in the
experiment."
I guess you are referring to elapsed time.
All elapsed time relative to experiments, that I have ever heard of, are
given WRT multiplying or dividing an earth rotation.
This is true from pico-seconds to centuries. A timepiece compares the
predictable motion of a clock with the rotation of the earth, or some
fraction thereof or multiple thereof.
I would be interested in any contrary examples you might know about.
Bill Hobba
>
> Use your heart beat as a clock. Call the beats "time".
> Use your heart beat. Call the heart "clock".
> Call the beats "time".
> Find that distance covered is proportional to time squared.
> Define velocity. Find that velocity is proportional to time.
> Define acceleration. Find that acceleration is constant.
> Talk with Galileo, the inventor of what *Allyou!* call myth.
>
> Don't you have a name, coward?
>
> Dirk Vdm
>
>
> In all that I don't see the definition of a clock. I see one example of
> what you are calling a clock. If you are using that for a definition,
then
> an atomic clock is not a clock because its not my heart.
In any explanation some things are accepted as given. I have detailed
elsewhere an intuitive discussion of why scientists define time as what
clocks read. But the discussion I gave has no real scientific value because
it relies on the intuitive notion that the same process will take exactly
the same amount of time. How do I prove this? - why I must use a device
that measures time - but I have used this concept to define such a device in
the first place. Thus it is fallacious reasoning - it is simply an
intuitive way of looking at it. If you wish to see a real discussion of
what time is that goes beyond what I said see Chapter 5 - The Distinction
Between Past and Future page 108 Feynman - The Character of Physical Law.
The bottom line though is that Dirk is correct. We see examples of clocks
all around us - heart beats, sundials, dripping faucets, all sorts of
things. It is one of those undefined concepts of physics like what a
measuring rod is - we pretty much know one when we see it. And once you
recognize that it becomes an experimental matter to determine their
accuracy. That is pretty much all their is to it. Of course such things
are not satisfactory to those of a philosophical bent - but that is a
question for philosophy - not science.
Thanks
Bill
>
> Why ask for a definition of a clock? Because you defined time as "It is
> what we read on our clocks" and Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a
clock
> as " : a device other than a watch for indicating or measuring time
commonly
> by means of hands moving on a dial; broadly : any periodic system by which
> time is measured" which gives a circular definition and is therefore
> useless. So unless you can give an alternate definition of a clock that
> doesn't refer to time, you need to change your definition of time.
>
> I'll just skip the smartass comment about hoping you don't have to define
> eyes, etc because I know there are a lot of kooks on these newsgroups and
> you are probably tired of answering them.
>
>
> ---
Daniel Weston
clock. Answer---because it cannot tell you what the time is. I thought
I have made that abundantly clear.
Daniel Weston
based on intuition, since time itself may be slowing down, or speeding
up? I think I understood his point, although it was not free from
ambiguity.
The idea that time every where is speeding up, is one of those
statements that cannot be proved or disproved. It is not falsifiable.
Neither the idea itself, nor the statement thereof, is scientific; and
therefore is of no concern to scientists. A timepiece is not intuition,
but is a fact. It is manifestly a practical device, with pragmatic
utility. No one ever claims that the most accurate atomic clock keeps
absolute time, because absolute time cannot be determined, and also it
does not exist. see Einstein.
Bill Hobba
> Bill wants to know why a black box with periodicy and a counter is not a
> clock. Answer---because it cannot tell you what the time is. I thought
> I have made that abundantly clear.
No it is not clear at all. If you have some periodic process and count it
sounds like a reasonable clock to me. You might like to make clear what you
mean by black box and how it stops such being a clock.
Bill
Bill Hobba
"Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23161-415...@storefull-3137.bay.webtv.net...
> based on intuition, since time itself may be slowing down, or speeding
> up? I think I understood his point, although it was not free from
> ambiguity.
I do not raise that issue at all. Time is what a clock measures - end of
story. You are the one that wishes to read more into it than that. What I
attempted to do in previous posts is give an intuitive idea of why it is
defined that way.
Bill
AllYou!
So time is what *certain* clocks says it is. It's pretty funny that you
jumped in at this point in the discussion, yet despite my repeated requests,
you've been too afraid to step out there and offer your own definition of a
clock. If time is what a clock says it is, then what's a clock?
> What is required is
> a repeatable recurring process - that is all - velocity need not have
> anything to do with it.
And how is this process observed? If everything, and I mean everything, in
a given FOR has no velocity whatsoever, how can you possibly measure time?
How will this magical clock operate? What could its instrumentation
possibly sense if nothing at all in that FOR moves? Do these magic clocks
of yours even read waves of some sort? Do these waves move?
AllYou!
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:cji272$2...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> Daniel Weston wrote:
> > It is easy enough to make a device that contains periodicy and that
> > counts such periodicy. Assume you are presented with a black box that
> > has periodicy and has achieved a count of 1,467,982 since it was turned
> > on. What does this tell you as to time? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
>
> Not true -- it tells you that the box has been on for 1,467,982 ticks.
> And you can use its ticks, whatever they may be, as a marking of time to
> however accurate its internal mechanism is.
Those ticks are just a set of ticks. To say that they mark time is
completly circular. The ticks are used to define time in the first place,
so how can they mark it too?
AllYou!
>
> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:TcudnRNRkbt...@conversent.net...
> >
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
> > in message news:xgY6d.261999$_Y5.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> > >
> > > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > news:SZmdnRl1SYz...@conversent.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> > babbled
> > > > in message news:sZV6d.261814$cP5.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> > > >
> > > > > It is what we read on our clocks [and a clock is defined
> > > > > as a mechanism capable of accurately repetitive
> > > > > motion, plus a counter of the repetitions]
> > >
> > > He fuck, I did not write this.
> > > You are cheating - again.
> >
> > That's why I used the brackets, asswhipe. The fact that I had to insert
a
> > definition for you is proof of your cowardice. You refuse to give one
for
> > yourself. LOL!
>
> You finally made it
This was predictable. You seem to have the idea that anyone should care
about a ridiculous website you maintain to show your ignorance. It's just a
continuation of the fervor with which you're determined to show what an
egocentric, pathetic, arrogant, and bitter old man you are.
But why do you still refuse to offer your own definition of a clock? Go
ahead, just try.
AllYou!
>
> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> news:6dqdnePNHv5...@conversent.net...
> >
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
> > in message news:GeY6d.261996$4G4.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> > >
> > > "Thomas Jones" <tjo...@qx.net> wrote in message
> > news:PK6dncw2x6y...@qx.net...
> >
> > > > Cool, That is an easy to understand definition for time. Now define
> > clocks.
> > >
> > > Clocks are all around us. Open your eyes and look
> > > around.
> > > I hope I don't have to define "eyes" and "to look around".
> > > See also my first reply on this thread.
> >
> > LOL! You're a joke and a coward.
> >
> > For all of your bravado, you refuse to respond. Others have done so
quite
> > willingly and quite well. For you to continue your mantra of *time is
> what
> > we read on our clocks* but then refuse to define a clock makes you a
joke.
>
> Hey idiot. I 'defined' a clock a certain way to intuitively justify the
> definition of time as what a clock reads.
Hey, moron.......the target of my comment was the other asswhipe, not you,
shithead.
> I also admitted my definition and
> argument has no scientific value
And neither do any of your other posts.
AllYou!
Only those things which *you* cannot explain. Only those things which you
have no capacity to understand. You gave an example of a clock, but you
refuse to define what a clock is. Why is that? What's your fear?
jahn
>
[snip]
> Time in S' as compared to S:
> [T= T'*g]
> Time on a linear clock in S' as compared to it's twin in S as both
observed
> from S:
> [T = g*(T'+vL'/c^2)]
or other constant length path?
Kind regards,
Sue...
>
>
AllYou!
"jahn" <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2s518sF...@uni-berlin.de...
I'm suggesting that the first is as we've learned.......that time dilates in
an accelerated FOR. But furthermore, I'm suggesting that by whatever means
available to make such observations, and with the Doppler effect removed, if
we were to place a clock consisting of a rod to which a *hand* was mounted
and that hand moved from one end of the rod to the other; and that clock was
synchronized with an exact duplicate so that they both *ticked* or the hands
on each moved down the respective rods at the exact same rate; and that we
accelerated one of those clocks such that it was in an accelerated FOR [S'];
and that it's direction of travel would be along the axis of the rod with
the hand moving in the same direction as the rod; that the clock as observed
in S would indicate a time of [T = g*(T'+vL'/c^2)].
So given these two, how can we say that time is what a clock says it is?
Tom Roberts
> Tom: I said that a black box that gives you a periodic count of some
> number is not a timepiece. If a black box shown to you has a count of
> 4,589, it is impossible for you to tell me the time of day, or how that
> translates into a fraction of a daily rotation of the earth.
Sure. So what? In physics a clock only needs to provide a measurement of
time intervals. You want a time-of-day clock, which is different. As I
said, that require comparison with a clock already calibrated in the
units you want to use. For a time-of-day clock that includes a
synchronization.
So underlying this is a pun on "clock".
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:cji272$2...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
>>And you can use its ticks, whatever they may be, as a marking of time to
>>however accurate its internal mechanism is.
>
> Those ticks are just a set of ticks. To say that they mark time is
> completly circular. The ticks are used to define time in the first place,
> so how can they mark it too?
That's the way physics works -- one does not "define the terms" and then
use those terms in a theory. Instead, the equations of a physical theory
define the relationships among the quantities involved, and there is no
independent definition of those quantities.
This is, at base, why one can select units freely -- there is no "God
given" definition of "one unit of time". Instead, people can use
seconds, weeks, hours, years, or cycles of the hyperfine transition of
the ground state of the Cs atom, whichever is most convenient.
BTW the exact same thing occurs for length. And mass. and...
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Androcles
|
| "jahn" <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
| news:2s518sF...@uni-berlin.de...
| >
| > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
| > news:SZmdnRl1SYz...@conversent.net...
| > >
| > [snip]
| > > Time in S' as compared to S:
| > > [T= T'*g]
| > > Time on a linear clock in S' as compared to it's twin in S as both
| > observed
| > > from S:
| > > [T = g*(T'+vL'/c^2)]
| > Does the above apply if the clocks are observed through a flexible cable
| > or other constant length path?
| > Kind regards,
| > Sue...
|
| I'm suggesting that the first is as we've learned.......that time dilates
in
| an accelerated FOR.
Who learned that, then?
Androcles.
AllYou!
I don't think so. To measure length, we take a quantity of length, assign a
unit to it, and then compare that unit to other lengths we wish to measure.
However, time is unique. With time, we first invent a mechanism we *say*
measures time, but ultimately, it always boils down to using motion. We use
velocity and distance as a unit of time and then use that to compare to
other events. Never do we use a true, fundamental quantity of time. That's
why this particular discussion is different than it is for those other
fundamental properties of nature.
I asked for definitions of a clock for a couple of reasons. First is that
others have claimed that time is what a clock says it is. I wanted to
demonstrate that time and what clocks say can be different.
Time in S' as compared to S:
[T= T'*g]
Time on a linear clock in S' as compared to it's twin in S as both observed
from S:
[T = g*(T'+vL'/c^2)]
I also just wanted to demonstrate that all measurements of time are really
just measurements of motion. IOW, time is simply an invention of man and
that instead of claiming that time dilates in an accelerated FOR, it's
really all motion within that FOR which dialte.
AllYou!
> > > > > > > What is a clock? If time is what a clock says it is, then
what's
> > > > clock,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > what are the limitations of this axiom?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So you already know what time is. As I have pointed out before it
is a
> > > > count of a regular process.
> > >
> > > regularity this way ;-)
> >
> > So now you guys can't even agree on a defintion of something that's so
> > clearly a fact? LOL!
> >
> > > He'll never understand it. He's here to troll, just like Androcles
> > > and Wilson and the likes.
> >
> >
> > I'm glad to see that you guys are having a great circle jerk here.
After
> > all, you need the refuge of someone who buys into your pathetic sense of
> > discourse. So tell me, where's your evidence of the existence of time?
> > Ohhhhh, that's right, you don't need evidence, it's a fact.
> >
> > LOL!
>
> The sound.......
.....of you inability to answer a simple question is deafening. Define a
clock. For all of your vitriol in here, why can't you seem to do it?
--
Paul Draper
You're right in one sense. If we are looking at time alone and we have
only clocks, then the expansion of time itself I don't believe would
be measurable from clocks.
But if time is part of spacetime, and if the expansion is for all
dimensions in spacetime, now I have a handle.
PD
AllYou!
>
> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:sp-dnRId_cA...@conversent.net...
> >
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
> > in message news:VKE6d.261106$NU3.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> > >
> > > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > news:8eidnUB2Za2...@conversent.net...
> > > > What is a clock? If time is what a clock says it is, then what's
clock,
> > and
> > > > what are the limitations of this axiom?
> > >
> > > Use your heart beat as a clock. Call the beats "time".
> >
> > A series of regular events is time? How original!
>
So a clock isn't even regular? LOL! OK, so define a clock. something
which you assert is an example of a clock is till not a definition. Do you
even know what a definition is? What are you so afraid of? Me? Is that
why you spew your venom at me? Define a clock. At least give it a try.
AllYou!
> > >
> > > "Thomas Jones" <tjo...@qx.net> wrote in message
> > news:PK6dncw2x6y...@qx.net...
> >
> > clocks.
> > >
> > > Clocks are all around us. Open your eyes and look
> > > around.
> > > I hope I don't have to define "eyes" and "to look around".
> > > See also my first reply on this thread.
> >
>
> Spaceman imitator?
Your refusal to answer a simple question is comical. You said that time is
what a clock says it is, so in order for that to have any validity, you've
got to define a clock. So please, give it a try. Let's expose the trap
you're in shall we?
Tom Roberts
>>BTW the exact same thing occurs for length. And mass. and...
>
> I don't think so. To measure length, we take a quantity of length, assign a
> unit to it, and then compare that unit to other lengths we wish to measure.
Your statement holds equally well for time, simply replace "length" with
"time". But it doesn't hold very well for either, as "quantity of length
(time)" is undefined.
> However, time is unique. With time, we first invent a mechanism we *say*
> measures time, but ultimately, it always boils down to using motion.
In teh case of length, you have to "invent a mechanism you *say*
measures length".
> We use
> velocity and distance as a unit of time
That's one way, but not the only way. For instnce, the current
international standard of length is defined in terms of an interval of
time and the speed of light.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Daniel Weston
provided. I would like to do that in this post based upon the foregoing
discussion.
We must first consider what is meant by a _definition_. Almost all
definitions are compromises, or trade offs if you prefer.
The trade off is between including to much and not including enough.
I.e., a definition is not the offering of a synonym, nor is it the
giving of a treatise. Ideally, a definition should include the
essential elements sufficient to distinguish it from something close in
meaning, and it should not be so broad as to include non essential
material that is applicable to other words or concepts. There are few
perfect definitions.
In addition to making trade offs, the definition must be crafted to a
particular audience. The defining task may change significantly whether
the definition is meant for a English/Chinese dictionary, preschoolers,
or PHD convention involving the subject being defined. There are few
perfect definitions.
Keeping these caveats in mind, I would like to offer the following
definition of timepiece. It is intended for the audience of
sci.physics.relativity.
-----
A timepiece (clock) is a device which translates the predictable motion
within the timepiece to the motion of the earth's rotation, or some
fraction or multiple thereof, in such a manner that the time can be
given in arbitrarily designated units, such as days, hours, minutes,
seconds, nano seconds, etc.
-----
I have only lived with this definition for about an hour, so it is
subject to constructive suggestions.
Daniel Weston
AllYou!
Thanks. So the timepiece (a term with inherent problems for me) simply
compares one motion to another. I'll accept that. In fact, that's what
I've been saying all along. Therefore, for those who would assert that time
is what a clock says it is, then a clock simply tells us something of the
Earth's rotation. It tells us nothing about this elusive figment of our
imagination we call time. Time is an invention of man created by him to
order various events. That's it.
jahn
relative moving clocks in perfect synchrony. So why would not T = T'
regardless of the relative motion?
Kind regards,
Sue...
AllYou!
> AllYou! wrote:
> > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:cjjn5j$n...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> >>BTW the exact same thing occurs for length. And mass. and...
> >
> > I don't think so. To measure length, we take a quantity of length,
assign a
> > unit to it, and then compare that unit to other lengths we wish to
measure.
>
> Your statement holds equally well for time, simply replace "length" with
> "time". But it doesn't hold very well for either, as "quantity of length
> (time)" is undefined.
But that's the trouble........when we speck of time, we're simply talking
about relating one motion to another. We relate what a clocks tells us to
the rotation of the Earth. That's all. Time is nothing more than a
function of velocity and distance. We can observe motion, we can observe
distance, we can observe mass, we can observe gravity. However, we can only
apply velocity to distance and *call* it time. It's never been observed.
> > However, time is unique. With time, we first invent a mechanism we
*say*
> > measures time, but ultimately, it always boils down to using motion.
>
> In teh case of length, you have to "invent a mechanism you *say*
> measures length".
But that mechanism is real and consists of a length. The mechanism we call
a clock only produces a motion. It consists of a velocity which we can
observe, and a distance we can observe. We relate one to the other and
simple call the result time.
> > We use
> > velocity and distance as a unit of time
>
> That's one way, but not the only way. For instnce, the current
> international standard of length is defined in terms of an interval of
> time and the speed of light.
Which just perpetuates the myth of time. What interval of time does it use?
Whatever that is, it simply relates back to motion. It probably relates
back to some interval of rotation of the Earth on it's axis.
AllYou!
jahn
If, relative to K, K' s a uniformly moving co-ordinate system devoid of
rotation, then natural phenomena run their course with respect to K'
according to exactly the same general laws as with respect to K. (p. 16)
} http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/Einstein/pr.relativity.html
So...??? I see no violation.
Kind regards,
Sue...
>
Dirk Van de moortel
"Thomas Jones" <tjo...@qx.net> wrote in message news:RNKdnekWkd3...@qx.net...
[snip]
> Ok. From your first post on this thread.
>
| > Use your heart beat as a clock. Call the beats "time".
| > ... wait, let me SPELL IT OUT MORE CLEARLY:
| > Use your heart beat. Call the heart "clock".
| > Call the beats "time".
| > Do experiments with falling stones.
| > Find that distance covered is proportional to time squared.
| > Define velocity. Find that velocity is proportional to time.
| > Define acceleration. Find that acceleration is constant.
[snip]
>
> In all that I don't see the definition of a clock. I see one example of
> what you are calling a clock. If you are using that for a definition, then
> an atomic clock is not a clock because its not my heart.
I cannot add much to what Bill replied but ...
>
> Why ask for a definition of a clock? Because you defined time as "It is
> what we read on our clocks" and Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a clock
> as " : a device other than a watch for indicating or measuring time commonly
> by means of hands moving on a dial; broadly : any periodic system by which
> time is measured" which gives a circular definition and is therefore
> useless.
I hope you realize that Merriam Webster is not a physicist :-)
> So unless you can give an alternate definition of a clock that
> doesn't refer to time, you need to change your definition of time.
There is no need to change the definition of time.
If you want to know what a clock is, just look around.
You have one in your chest.
You have one around your wrist.
The spinning Earth is one.
A pulsar is one.
Radioactive decay can be used as one.
Manufacturers create them.
Some are better than others.
When you buy two pieces from a manufacturer and when
you have established that they behave in the same way, you
can start doing interesting experiments with that thing you
can read on them and that you call "time".
>
> I'll just skip the smartass comment about hoping you don't have to define
> eyes, etc
The comment wasn't meant as smartassy, it was dead serious.
We don't define "clocks" in physics, just like we don't define
a "stone" and "to fall" and "eyes" and "to look around" in physics.
> because I know there are a lot of kooks on these newsgroups and
> you are probably tired of answering them.
Almost. I usually stop answering them when it stops being fun ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"jahn" <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:2s5lg2F...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> news:aeCdncj0Dsn...@conversent.net...
> >
> > "jahn" <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:2s5j77F...@uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > > news:lrydnaPs1a9...@conversent.net...
> > > >
> > > > "jahn" <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:2s518sF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > > > >
> > > > > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:SZmdnRl1SYz...@conversent.net...
> > > > > >
[snip]
> Kind regards,
> Sue...
Hey Dennis, I'm sure the two of you will get along pretty well.
The both of you seem to panic when physicists tell you that
they define time as what they read on clocks.
Enjoy each other but try to avoid being too pathetic, okay?
Dirk Vdm
AllYou!
Well, if you're so great at finding clocks all around you, you should have
no problem coming up with a defintion. So why don't you? Why not venture
out there and offer one?
> > I'll just skip the smartass comment about hoping you don't have to
define
> > eyes, etc
>
> The comment wasn't meant as smartassy, it was dead serious.
> We don't define "clocks" in physics, just like we don't define
> a "stone" and "to fall" and "eyes" and "to look around" in physics.
Nonsense, shear nonsense. If you define time as what a clack says it is,
then you need to define what a clock is or you definition of time is
nonsense (which it is anyway). So what's a clock?
> > because I know there are a lot of kooks on these newsgroups and
> > you are probably tired of answering them.
>
> Almost. I usually stop answering them when it stops being fun ;-)
So you must find it fun to be an asshole.
--
AllYou!
More vitriol from a bitter an pathetic old man.
So, a clock *says* that time was one second. One second is 0.0000116
rotations of the Earth. So time is an interval of the rotation of the
Earth. So time is a velocity through a distance. Isn't that what I've been
saying all along?
AllYou!
Violation of what? Einstein says that an observer in K will observe all
natural phenomena occurring in K in exactly the same way that an observer in
K' will observe all natural phenomena in K' This says nothing about what an
observer in K will observe about what's happening in K'. Einstein said that
an observer in K will observe time in K' as [T=T'*g].
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:S6-dnS4TC4Z...@conversent.net...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:soh7d.262921$zV6.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
[snip]
> > There is no need to change the definition of time.
> > If you want to know what a clock is, just look around.
> > You have one in your chest.
> > You have one around your wrist.
> > The spinning Earth is one.
> > A pulsar is one.
> > Radioactive decay can be used as one.
> > Manufacturers create them.
> > Some are better than others.
> >
> > When you buy two pieces from a manufacturer and when
> > you have established that they behave in the same way, you
> > can start doing interesting experiments with that thing you
> > can read on them and that you call "time".
>
> Well, if you're so great at finding clocks all around you, you should have
> no problem coming up with a defintion. So why don't you? Why not venture
> out there and offer one?
Face it, you are and always have been too stupid for this.
I think you should find another hobby. Live a bit longer.
Dirk Vdm
AllYou!
IOW, you have no idea how to do it. You're so completely afraid that you'll
be led into a corner into which you've painted yourself that you'll do
anything now to avoid giving an answer. The ole *well if you're too stupid
to know, I'm not going to tell you* defense. LOL! You're a fucking riot.
God, how I love to twist you up in knots. This is more fun than one person
should have.
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:S9mdnWVsHrv...@conversent.net...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:Hai7d.262998$JV5.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
[snip]
> > Face it, you are and always have been too stupid for this.
>
> IOW, you have no idea how to do it. You're so completely afraid that you'll
> be led into a corner into which you've painted yourself that you'll do
> anything now to avoid giving an answer. The ole *well if you're too stupid
> to know, I'm not going to tell you* defense. LOL! You're a fucking riot.
> God, how I love to twist you up in knots. This is more fun than one person
> should have.
Share it with Androcles and Ken Seto. They have the same kind
of fun
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Dirk Vdm
AllYou!
I bet you get that a lot. LOL!
Daniel Weston
That is, does not a clock have to be calibrated?
The answer is that clocks (timepieces) have evolved from the most
rudimentary to increasingly complex and increasingly more accurate
devices. If you needed a clock to make a clock, we would never have
clocks because we are not born with clocks. (We have a heart beat but
that is only part of a possible clock, but not a finished clock since it
does not make comparisons with another motion.)
One day my science professor came into class and announced, "Since it
takes tools to make tools, it is impossible to have tools." It finally
became clear that tools evolved. The first tool might have been using a
rock to crack a nut, or a stick to hollow out a fire place. Prior to
their use as a tool, they were just a rock or a stick.
After that it was a simple but time consuming task to make ever more
complex tools suitable for more precise applications.
The same is true of timepieces. No one knows what the first devices
looked like. It could have been as simple as sticking a stick in the
ground and watching the sun's shadow move across some roughly calibrated
marks in the sand. Thereafter each successive clock was compared with
the then existing clocks in terms of increased utility and accuracy.
The calibration was in terms of the earth's rotation, in ancient days
known as sunrise to sunrise. The first known clocks were calibrated by
noting the movement of a clock device from sunrise to sunrise. The
movement could then be arbitrarily divided into arbitrary units and
given the name _time_.
An ancient text from Egypt described how to make a "do it yourself"
clock. Start a candle burning at sunrise. Stop the burning at the next
sunrise. Note the distance, then divide it in half. (2 12 hr days
being born) Then divide each half again in half. (day is now in 4
parts) Divide again. (day in 8 parts) Then divide each into 3 parts.
(day now divided into 24 parts and given the name of hours)
This stuff is very elementary, but it is so elementary that it is often
overlooked or totally forgotten. This in turn prompts remarks such as,
"Since the new clock design must be calibrated with a past clock, the
whole business of time is circular." This is a conclusion based
upon insufficient information.
jahn
"AllYou!" wrote in message news:LZqdnXGNaqZ...@conversent.net...
"jahn" wrote in message news:2s5lg2F...@uni-berlin.de...
"AllYou!" wrote in message news:aeCdncj0Dsn...@conversent.net...
"jahn" wrote in message news:2s5j77F...@uni-berlin.de...
"AllYou!" wrote in message news:lrydnaPs1a9...@conversent.net...
"jahn" wrote in message news:2s518sF...@uni-berlin.de...
"AllYou!" wrote in message news:SZmdnRl1SYz...@conversent.net...
<<
Einstein said lots of things. What has that to do with the principle of
relativity? It works just fine with or without observers and was
probably better stated by Weber. Here is another translation: { If K is
a Galileian co-ordinate system, then every other co-ordinate system K'
is a Galileian one, when, in relation to K, it is in a condition of
uniform motion of translation. Relative to K' the mechanical laws of
Galilei-Newton hold good exactly as they do with respect to K. }
http://www.bartleby.com/173/5.html
Kind regards, Sue...
Daniel Weston
time nor is it a timepiece. The rotating earth is not time in and of
itself, and the rotating earth is not a clock. It is part of all earth
clocks, but only part. It is necessary but not sufficient. A timepiece
must _compare_
the movements of 2 things and give a readout we call time. The rotating
earth has velocity through distance, but standing alone it makes no
comparisons. The making of movement comparisons is a human endeavor.
Androcles
You are losing it, Tom.
Give up, you can't even spell "the" or "instance".
As to defining the international standard, those involved are losing it too,
because the second is defined from the speed of light also. Soon the world
will consist of nothing but incompetent morons like you and Koks, and soon
after that, moortel.
Androcles.
Androcles
Androcles
Androcles
Androcles
Prove it! I really don't give shit what Einstein said or did not say, he's
fucking dead. YOU prove it, and I'll cut you to ribbons.
Androcles.
|
Bill Hobba
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:9227d.9916$5O5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...> > > in message news:GeY6d.261996$4G4.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...> > > news:PK6dncw2x6y...@qx.net...> > > > > in message news:sZV6d.261814$cP5.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...> > > > > news:7bKdndEWbP0...@conversent.net...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:2s0mjnF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > > > > > > > | What is a clock? If time is what a clock says it is, then
> > > what's
> > > > > clock,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > | what are the limitations of this axiom?
> > > > > > > >
> two
> > > > > motions.
> > > > > > > > Does a clock compare two motions?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll buy that fully.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course you buy it fully. It is junk.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > So is it a real property of nature or just an
> > > > > > > invention of man?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is what we read on our clocks.
> > > > > > How difficult is that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dirk Vdm
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Cool, That is an easy to understand definition for time. Now
define
> > > clocks.
> > > >
> > > > Clocks are all around us. Open your eyes and look
> > > > around.
> > > > I hope I don't have to define "eyes" and "to look around".
> > > > See also my first reply on this thread.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ok. From your first post on this thread.
> > >
> > > Use your heart beat as a clock. Call the beats "time".
> > > ... wait, let me SPELL IT OUT MORE CLEARLY:
> > > Use your heart beat. Call the heart "clock".
> > > Call the beats "time".
> > > Do experiments with falling stones.
> > > Find that distance covered is proportional to time squared.
> > > Define velocity. Find that velocity is proportional to time.
> > > Define acceleration. Find that acceleration is constant.
> > >
> > > Don't you have a name, coward?
> > >
> > > Dirk Vdm
> > >
> > >
> > > In all that I don't see the definition of a clock. I see one example
of
> > > what you are calling a clock. If you are using that for a definition,
> > then
> > > an atomic clock is not a clock because its not my heart.
> >
>
> Only those things which *you* cannot explain. Only those things which you
> have no capacity to understand. You gave an example of a clock, but you
> refuse to define what a clock is. Why is that? What's your fear?
I have no fear. I have given a definition of what a clock is and an
intuitive idea of what is going on as well as why such is fraught with
danger. But Dirk has the correct idea - intervals of time, like intervals
of distance, and tons of other things in physics, are primitives on which
the theories are based. It is obvious from your posts you do not see the
logical inconsistency in your position. What you are doing is demanding
that we seek an explanation of those things you believe it is required to
explain (eg a clock) while we do not have to seek an explanation of those
things you do not think it is required to explain (eg a measuring rod) and
claiming your arbitrary demand as having some kind of objective validity.
Demanding that we arbitrarily explain some things and not others and claming
you are the arbiter of what needs to be explained and what does not is the
way of the crank and crackpot - not the way of those interested in science.
The fact of the matter is that it does not matter what explanation one has
then some things are accepted as true requiring no further explanation - it
is simply not possible for it to be otherwise. And in physics time is
considered one of those things. Tom Roberts has even pointed out in modern
times distance itself it defined in terms of time and the velocity of light
so in a certain sense time is now more fundamental than distance.
Bill
Eugene Shubert
> There have been numerous requests that a definition of a clock be
> provided.
The requests will continually be made until someone analyzes the
simplest clock imaginable.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eugene Shubert
Daniel Weston
briefly summarize what this simplest clock is. Then we can analyze it.
Thanks.
Eugene Shubert
> Eugene: My internet system cannot pull down your citation. Could you
> briefly summarize what this simplest clock is. Then we can analyze it.
> Thanks.
Daniel,
The simplest clock imaginable for special relativity is also presented
here:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
As for the other link,
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf,you should
know that pdf files are very popular on the internet. You may want to
install Adobe Reader. It's Adobe's free pdf reader to read and print
pdf files. You can get it here:
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readermain.html
I'm looking forward to reading your comments on what I believe is the
easiest clock to imagine and use to formulate a proper understanding
of special relativity.
Eugene Shubert
YBM
> Eugene: My internet system cannot pull down your citation. Could you
> briefly summarize what this simplest clock is. Then we can analyze it.
You'd better don't care : Eugene Schubert is a crank.
Daniel Weston
comment on the relationship of this clock and its use to explain
relativity. WRT relativity, I come to sci.physics.relativity, to learn
and not to teach. Relativity itself and its associated issues, I have
always found most fascinating. The Shubertian clock and its
relationship to relativity, is over my head.
I can however comment with a scintilla of authority on whether the
Shubertan device is indeed a clock. It consists in relevant part of 2
rulers with equally spaced markings and under circumstances where they
move by each other in steady motion.
An observer on one of the rulers uses the passing of the markings of the
other ruler as indicating equal time intervals. So far so good. This
device seems to me to provide predictable motion, but it lacks a
translator and as such cannot be a clock.
As Einstein pointed out, a timepiece is a device which inter alia
_compares_ the motion of one thing with the motion of another thing.
This device makes no such comparison, and therefore cannot be a clock
according to Einstein. This observation by Einstein is independent of
the theory of relativity itself. It was a profound observation about
timepieces which assisted him in inventing relativity.
Your device is analogous to the black box that I have described above.
Your device and a black box deliver signals of equal time intervals, but
make no comparison with another object's motion. It can be used as part
of a clock, but according to the unrefuted observation of Einstein, it
is not a clock standing alone.
Bill Hobba
> > >
> > > "Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> > > news:4809-415...@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net...
> > > > A clock is usually defined as 1) periodicy + 2) a counter. It is
> > > > difficult to understand how such an incorrect definition could
obtain
> so
> > > > much popularity. This becomes clear when there is provided a black
> box
> > > > that meets that definition absolutely but cannot be used as a clock.
> > > >
> > > > It is easy enough to make a device that contains periodicy and that
> > > > counts such periodicy. Assume you are presented with a black box
that
> > > > has periodicy and has achieved a count of 1,467,982 since it was
> turned
> > > > on. What does this tell you as to time? Nothing. Absolutely
nothing.
> > > > The definition is deeply suspect.
> > > >
> > > > A timepiece (clock) should be defined as 1) predictable motion + 2)
a
> > > > translator. The translator translates predictable motion into
> > > > a rotational day, or some fraction thereof.
> > > >
> > > > 1) periodic motion + counter = clock, is FALSE.
> > > >
> > > > 2) predictable motion + translator = clock, is TRUE.
> > >
> > > So how inaccurate would it be to say that a clock requires a velocity
> > > through a distance? Is this not the definition of motion?
> >
> > The inaccuracy has to with the fact clocks exist in which a precise
> velocity
> > is an ill defined concept due to QM eg the electrons in a cesium clock
> emit
> > radiation due to change in energy levels not velocity.
>
> So time is what *certain* clocks says it is. It's pretty funny that you
> jumped in at this point in the discussion, yet despite my repeated
requests,
> you've been too afraid to step out there and offer your own definition of
a
> clock. If time is what a clock says it is, then what's a clock?
I, Tom Roberts, Dirk and others have explained the situation to you many
times. You are simply too stupid to understand. As Dirk has commented why
you want to post to a physics forum with a question then ignore the answer
is a bit of a mystery - well not really - it is consistant with 'Unskilled
and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence
Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments'
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html. The irony lies in what the
paper concludes is necessary to overcome it:
'The incompetent can gain insight about their shortcomings, but this comes
(paradoxically) by making them more competent, thus providing them the
metacognitive skills necessary to be able to realize that they have
performed poorly.'
Those that refuse to take this necessary step will never progress; and like
an alcoholic, will continue to repeat the same behavior.
Bill
>
> > What is required is
> > a repeatable recurring process - that is all - velocity need not have
> > anything to do with it.
>
> And how is this process observed? If everything, and I mean everything,
in
> a given FOR has no velocity whatsoever, how can you possibly measure time?
> How will this magical clock operate? What could its instrumentation
> possibly sense if nothing at all in that FOR moves? Do these magic clocks
> of yours even read waves of some sort? Do these waves move?
>