Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity
GSS
notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
time.
Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
spatial dimension (L). The measure of time is the same in all reference
frames just as the universal coordinated time (UTC) or the TAI are
already accepted by the international scientific community. For
detailed presentation of this notion, kindly refer to,
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/time_measure.htm
GSS
Sue...
Ugggh! Well... two outta three pieces ain't bad. :o)
<< Hence the Time, as a relative measure of change, is an
extremely important parameter in the study of an essentially
dynamic physical Universe. >>
Yes... but the relation to mass/energy demands more specifics
than you are offering. Near field potentials can *change* but
we don't sometimes don't note the passage of ~time~ 'till there
a mass/energy tranport occurs.
<< if we want to work out the potentials at position and time
then we have to perform integrals of the charge density and
current density over all space (just like in the steady-state
situation).
However, when we calculate the contribution of charges and
currents at position to these integrals we do not use the values
at time , instead we use the values at some earlier time . What
is this earlier time? It is simply the latest time at which a light
signal
emitted from position would be received at position before time .
This is called the retarded time. Likewise, the potentials (509)
and (510) are called retarded potentials. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Einstein erroneously applies this generally instead of in concert
with a coupling structure. (Presumeably, he only wanted to
deal with 'space' and its etheral or non-etheral properties) :-(
Likewise, in GR the coupling structure is omitted. The mechanism
of an oscillating mass is implied as relating to time/energy
but it only receives formal devlopment when a theory of
relativity has to morph into a theory of invariance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
Still... you have quite a concise description of the problem.
I know time is a bit more physical than what you allude to
because when my foot gets heavy in traffic, I feel the
pain at the fuel pump. ;-)
IOW
TIME is MORE than a Relative Measure of CHANGE
How about a title like:
TIME *as* a Relative Measure of CHANGE,
...respecting that time is an imaginary, with real consequences.
The enegy exchange in the oscillating pendulum is what is
missing. It will hard to work that in, while keeping the piece to
a reasonable length but you appear to have a special knack
for that.
Sue...
GSS
Yes I agree with you.
In essence "TIME is MORE than a Relative Measure of CHANGE"
Time is the essence of "the CHANGE".
Time is the essential feature of the "dynamic physical universe".
But what I have presented here is the notion of time measure. That is
how we quantify the time. That is when we say that one cycle of a
standard pendulum corresponds to N cycles of Cs-133 hyperfine
transition resonance, we define the time measure.
GSS
Mike
You write:
"However, due to the over bearing dominance of mathematics during the
20th century, some Mathematicians have started propagating the idea of
equivalence of the dimensions of length (L) and time (T). "
Right from the start you exhibit a misunderstanding of the subject. I
did not read the rest that is. Nobody has ever proposed the
",,,equivalence of the dimensions of length (L) and time (T). "
Instead, space and time are treated in modern physics in the context of
a 4-D continuum, what is called space-time or spacetime.
Also, you seem to confuse various conceptions of time. There is time as
part of cognitive processes, time as an emotive concept and time as a
physical concept. Modern physics does not deal with neither the essence
of time nor its existence. These are subjects of a metaphysical
investigation of time. At most, physics deals with the concept of the
"arrow of time" and not how time arises and evolves.
You also write:
"In Relativity, the notion of space-time continuum has been treated
as a physical entity.."
That is also not correct. Actually, relativity has been criticized by
some for NOT assigning to spacetime a physical existence. When you make
such statements, you ought to give some references to support the
point. I do not think you can find any reference to support your
misunderstandings.
Mike
actioni...@yahoo.com
> ...respecting that time is an imaginary, with real consequences.
I was scanning the original posting, looking for something interesting,
and I came
across this phrase of yours. What does it mean?
Sue...
On a second read, I noticed you actually did use the phrase
time *as* a relative measure of change so my criticism is
is demoted to something of a spilling miss take. I'd fix the
title and save the keystrokes for a page that can focus
on the relationship between time and energy.
The way we quantify time is arbitrary but its physical
significance is not. Honest! The store where I buy
gasoline, charges me money for time when I try to
steal it with more agressive driving habits so I know
it must be real. :o)
IMHO... the page is squatting half way between metrology
and physics. Unfortunately, that seems to be the current
tactic to keep the dubious term 'time dilation' alive.
If you want to conclude with this statement:
<< In Relativity, the notion of space-time continuum has
been treated as a physical entity, which could even be
deformed and curved!! Well, that is fundamentally
incompatible with the basic notion of Time as discussed
above. >>
...then it would be better if you take a purely metrologist
approach. A metrologist would say a drag race car uses
less fuel on a 20,000 km high course than at sea level
because his instruments are based on the cesium atom.
A physicist has to say the clock runs faster at at
20,000 km because there is no free lunch and no
free fuel. The Pound-Snider experiment is consistant
with this POV.
(an auto mechanic would probably point out that all
bets are off when oscillating pistons try to shake
the earth and change tides and would win the argument)
In a contorted sort of way, mass energy equivalence
*is* representable by a curvature in the Lorenz gauge.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
...so it is the mis-interpreters due the whipping, not
the technique of working in a special co-ordinate system
optimized for a purpose.
Sue...
"R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider,
Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance"
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.539
The more accurate measurement with Snider
"On the Interpretation of the Redshift in a Static Gravitational Field"
Authors: LB Okun (ITEP, Moscow), KG Selivanov
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017
dda1
GSS wrote:
<all imbecility snipped>
> GSS
Self agrandizing word salad from persistent cretin Gurcharn Sandhu.
Many more such cretins like you in India?
rot...@gmail.com
>Still however, there is no unique definition of time.
That is one of the problems in physics. Depending in which field one is
working in, 'time' has a different (operational) definition...
>The most common definition may be taken as , 'Time is what we measure
> by clocks --all sorts of clocks'.
That is the common definition but not 'all sorts of clocks'. Only
clocks which are accepted as standard time measurements devices. The
cesium clock and stated (or assumed) equivalents. The pendulum clock is
not a 'clock' in the modern sence. We can use the pendulum clock to
describe laws of physics, but in such case, the laws will be written
differently. This is the case for SR and Galilean relativity: they both
use different definitions for 'clock' (time) and hence the equations of
physics are expressed differently, eg. Lorentz trans. and Galilean
trans.
>In Nature, there are a large number of physical processes, which undergo
>cyclic changes. Depending on the consistency of such cyclic changes
>and the convenience of their measurement...
Correct. And as you know, the official standard for 'second' or 'clock'
is the Cs clock. Calibrated equivalents are used to measure 'time', as
you point out...
>...The motion of this particle can be represented as a helical trace in a XY-T
>coordinate space or manifold...
>...XYZ-T does not physically exist anywhere at any time; it is just a mathematical notion...
Etc...Note that in highscholl textbooks and in Manifold theory, the
parameter 't' for 'time' does not have the same definition for 't' in
physics. In Differential geometry (&manifolds), the 't' is an arbitrary
parameter. The 'x' and 't' are independent variables. That is not the
case in physics. In physics, 'x' and 't' are not independent variables.
Actually, 'x' is defined as a function (operational definition) of
't',...of the reading of a clock.
Anyhow, I leave you with those thoughts...I will read on your pages in
due physical/mathematical/thermodynamical/psychological Time ;)
---
If you want to be sure, then always doubt.
}:-)
Sue...
Are you familiar with the trigononometric use of sqrt(-1),
the imaginary operator. Many folks know its use as the
apparent power of an induction motor. We 'imagine' the
time is different when we measure current and voltage.
The real consequence is power is wasted in heating
wire resistance as this 'imaginary' time skew increases.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ComplexPlane.html
Exactly the same type of imaginary time is used in the
nearfield of EM coupling structures (light squirtere and catchers)
where free lunches are also pretty scarce.
<< when we calculate the contribution of charges and
currents at position to these integrals we do not use the
values at time , instead we use the values at some earlier
time . What is this earlier time? It is simply the latest time
at which a light signal emitted from position would be
received at position before time . This is called the
retarded time. Likewise, the potentials (509) and (510)
are called retarded potentials. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Sue...
surrealis...@hotmail.com
GSS wrote:
> I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
> notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
> accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
> time.
>
> Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
> spatial dimension (L). The measure of time is the same in all reference
> frames just as the universal coordinated time (UTC)
In a physical theory, time is what its definition of measurement says
it is. Tell us how to setup synchronized clocks that remain
synchronized come what may.
Even in Lorentz's theory time is absolute only in the rest frame of the
ether.
Sue...
surrealis...@hotmail.com wrote:
> GSS wrote:
> > I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
> > notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
> > accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
> > time.
> >
> > Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
> > spatial dimension (L). The measure of time is the same in all reference
> > frames just as the universal coordinated time (UTC)
>
> In a physical theory, time is what its definition of measurement says
> it is.
There is nothing wrong with that if the theory can be mathematically
consistant. Where it is inconsistant, as in the twin clock paradox
the theory has to be dismissed as an absurdity. There is no
experiment that can rescue a mathematical absurdity so the
theorist's license to tick has to be terminated. :o)
> Tell us how to setup synchronized clocks that remain
> synchronized come what may.
Except those regions of space where knife wielding marble
thives still roam, two equal lengths of garden hose, fed
colored marbles by a master clock permit the output ends
to be synchronsed regardless of their separation.
<< The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe. >>
--C. S. Unnikrishnan
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
Sue...
Smolley
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1150477546....@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Time is absolute, it is the determination of "interval" that causes
inconsistency.
Smolley
kenseto
"Smolley" <jon_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0N-dnaBIX62...@bt.com...
I agree with that completely. BTW that's the reason why evrybody measures
the same speed of light. The speed of light is a constant math ratio as
follows:
light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to an improved theory
of relativity calledRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset . However, unlike SRT,
he equations of IRT are valid in all environments...including gravity. A
description of IRT is in the following link (page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Ken Seto
GSS
Mike wrote:
> GSS wrote:
> > I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
> > notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
> > accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
> > time.
> >
> > Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
> > spatial dimension (L). The measure of time is the same in all reference
> > frames just as the universal coordinated time (UTC) or the TAI are
> > already accepted by the international scientific community. For
> > detailed presentation of this notion, kindly refer to,
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/time_measure.htm
> >
> > GSS
>
> You write:
>
> "However, due to the over bearing dominance of mathematics during the
> 20th century, some Mathematicians have started propagating the idea of
> equivalence of the dimensions of length (L) and time (T). "
> Right from the start you exhibit a misunderstanding of the subject. I
> did not read the rest that is. Nobody has ever proposed the
> ",,,equivalence of the dimensions of length (L) and time (T). "
There are many scientists here in these discussion forums, who insist
on advocating the use of so called natural units in Physics whereby
G=c=h=1. Do you want their names?
> Instead, space and time are treated in modern physics in the context of
> a 4-D continuum, what is called space-time or spacetime.
It is OK to use the notion of a 4-D continuum as long as you use it in
mathematical modeling. Secondly, even in a mathematical model you must
retain the 4-D continuum as a 'continuum' and should not deform it into
a 'dis-continuum'. But this is precisely what has been done in GR.
Kindly refer to,
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/invalidity_gr.pdf
GSS
dda1
GSS wrote:
<all shit spouted by Gurcharn Sandhu snipped>
>
> GSS
Fuck off, get it? You are a shithead, Gurcharn Sandhu
actioni...@yahoo.com
GSS wrote:
> Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
> spatial dimension (L). The measure of time is the same in all reference
> frames just as the universal coordinated time (UTC) or the TAI are
> already accepted by the international scientific community.
Please forgive my lack of sophistication along these lines, but I am
here to learn!
In the link, I was unable to find any discussion of the notion of
"proper time" - pro or con. Therefore, I found nothing really counter
to what most people think of when they discuss "time".
Sue...
The use of proper time:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node114.html
...is rejected in the last paragraph.
<< In Relativity, the notion of space-time continuum has
been treated as a physical entity, which could even be
deformed and curved!! Well, that is fundamentally
incompatible with the basic notion of Time as discussed
above. >>
The possibily of imaginary time to show a principle
of invariance is not developed so it doesn't seem an
oversight... IMHO
Sue...
Bill Hobba
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150448853....@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
> notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
> accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
> time.
>
> Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
> spatial dimension (L).
That is how we model time. Physically time is what a clock reads where
clock is not even given an exact precise definition. If you want to go
further than that post on a philosophy forum. As to what a philosopher
thinks of it see
http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm
'Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is "time"? As
questions of physics these are going to be very different from similar
questions in philosophy. In physics, all one need say, to get started, is
that "mass resists acceleration" (intertial mass) or "mass exerts
gravitational attraction" (gravitational mass), that "distance is what we
measure with this rod," and that "time is what we measure with this clock."
Wow. These answers, of course, are not philosophically very satisfying. They
are all one needs, however, to start doing the science. And there is a
reason for that. Scientific explanations are logically only sufficient, not
necessary, to the phenomena. This means that they are enough to explain
something about what we are seeing, but that logically they are not the only
possible explanation and they do not explain everything about what we are
seeing. Indeed, explaining everything is a tall order, though it is what,
philosophically, we would like ultimately to have.'
> The measure of time is the same in all reference
> frames
Experimentally refuted by for example experiments with atomic clocks on
planes.
Bill
Sue...
I doubt the author will find much familiartiy with the cesium atom
in a philosophy forum. Instead of insults you might have offered
some background how the 'cyclic changes' referenced in his
piece can be related to subatomic mass that contributes
to the hyperfine transition and nuclear resonance and the
masses interaction with earth's gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfine_structure
R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on
Nuclear Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964).
[3] The more accurate measurement with Snider
...Ahhh but that might throw you off of your parroting script. :-(
Sue...
GSS
Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
satellites and space ships? Just imagine the state of our world if the
measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
satellite and each space craft!! On the other hand imagine how
convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
through out our solar system and in all reference frames.
GSS
Phineas T Puddleduck
<gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
> satellites and space ships? Just imagine the state of our world if the
> measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
> satellite and each space craft!! On the other hand imagine how
> convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
> through out our solar system and in all reference frames.
>
> GSS
Not only does time change, its rate of change has been successfully
measured. It is very small though - on a par with your understanding of
modern physics.
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
dda1
StinkingCunt Gurcharn Sandhu wrote:
> Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
> satellites and space ships?
<rest snipped , way too idiotic for young children>
>
Gurcharn Sandhu, ever herad of the Ives Stilwell experiment, you
cretinoid? No? Then go fuck yourself.
Tom Roberts
> Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
> satellites and space ships?
If you want to examine your beliefs, you are not doing physics. To those
of us doing physics, _measurements_ are important, not beliefs. Clocks
have been _measured_ to vary in tick rate when placed in planes and
satellites, as compared to a standard clock such as USNO. We don't have
suitable clocks and space ships to test, but there's no reason to expect
they would be any different.
> Just imagine the state of our world if the
> measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
> satellite and each space craft!!
Your "imagination" is likewise not physics. The world being more
complicated than you can imagine merely indicates a lack of imagination
on your part, not any problem with the world, or with other people's
understanding of it. <shrug>
> On the other hand imagine how
> convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
> through out our solar system and in all reference frames.
Within limits, one can arrange to do this, given enough _knowledge_ and
suitable equipment. For instance, the GPS does precisely this in the
neighborhood of earth (for technical reasons, GPS time differs from UTC,
but the principle is the same). This depends on gravity being "small"
and the volume of spacetime for which it is attempted being "small" in a
different sense. Suitable corrections must be made to raw clock readings
to obtain the coordinate time, because the clocks respond to physical
conditions that are abstracted away in the coordinate system.
Tom Roberts
Phineas T Puddleduck
>
> Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
> satellites and space ships? Just imagine the state of our world if the
> measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
> satellite and each space craft!! On the other hand imagine how
> convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
> through out our solar system and in all reference frames.
You mean like a *proper* *Time*, perhaps with a *proper* *distance* to
go with it?
Mike
He shouldn't go to Santa Clara I heard it's a gay place.
Mike
kenseto
There is no such clock avaliable that can have the same rate of passage of
clock seconds in different frames. The purpose of SRT is to find the clock
value of an observer's clock second in terms of the clock value in the
observed frame. However, SRT is incomplete. IRT is complete. The following
link gives a description of IRT (page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Ken Seto
dda1
ken setothe Patented Cretin wrote:
>However, SRT is incomplete. IRT is complete.
Yes, Ken Seto is a complete cretin.
actioni...@yahoo.com
Sue... wrote:
> The use of proper time:
> ...is rejected in the last paragraph.
>
> Sue...
Ok - that is what I thought the author was saying, but I couldn't find
any motivation in the
text. It seemed to be just stating in the text.
On the other hand, this is the second time you have mentioned
"imaginary time". Can you provide a link that gives me more detail? I'm
interested in this concept.
GSS
> GSS wrote:
> > Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
> > satellites and space ships?
>
> If you want to examine your beliefs, you are not doing physics.
To question one's deep seated beliefs and dogmas is the beginning of
Philosophy. And Philosophy must be the guiding spirit while doing
Physics.
> To those
> of us doing physics, _measurements_ are important, not beliefs. Clocks
> have been _measured_ to vary in tick rate when placed in planes and
> satellites, as compared to a standard clock such as USNO. We don't have
> suitable clocks and space ships to test, but there's no reason to expect
> they would be any different.
The prime reason is the invalidity of second postulate of SR.
The final test is being planned in PARCS project.
> > Just imagine the state of our world if the
> > measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
> > satellite and each space craft!!
>
> Your "imagination" is likewise not physics.
The imagination is akin to a computer simulation of a situation or
process. If you don't have necessary information with you about the
relevant situation or process, you cannot imagine that situation or
process. And acquiring relevant information is the preliminary step in
doing Physics. If you are doing Physics without imagination then 'God'
save the Physics.
> The world being more
> complicated than you can imagine merely indicates a lack of imagination
> on your part, not any problem with the world, or with other people's
> understanding of it. <shrug>
>
>
> > On the other hand imagine how
> > convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
> > through out our solar system and in all reference frames.
>
> Within limits, one can arrange to do this, given enough _knowledge_ and
> suitable equipment. For instance, the GPS does precisely this in the
> neighborhood of earth (for technical reasons, GPS time differs from UTC,
> but the principle is the same). This depends on gravity being "small"
> and the volume of spacetime for which it is attempted being "small" in a
> different sense.
>Suitable corrections must be made to raw clock readings
> to obtain the coordinate time, because the clocks respond to physical
> conditions that are abstracted away in the coordinate system.
In Cs atomic clock, the main oscillator is electronically locked to the
ground state hyperfine transition resonance of Cs-133 atom and
9192631770 cycles of this resonance are used to define one second of
time. This transition resonance frequency is electronically divided
down and used in a feed back control circuit (servo-loop) to keep a
quartz crystal oscillator locked to a frequency of 5 MHz which is the
actual output of the clock. Kindly clarify whether in your opinion, the
Relativity corrections are applied to these atomic clocks in,
(a) Adjusting the hyperfine transition resonance of Cs-133 atoms?
(b) Adjusting the servo-loop feed back control circuitary?
(c) Adjusting the output of the clock by some other means?
(d) Adjusting the digital output readings of the clock during data
processing?
Your specific detailed reply will be highly appreciated.
GSS
Phineas T Puddleduck
<gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> In Cs atomic clock, the main oscillator is electronically locked to the
> ground state hyperfine transition resonance of Cs-133 atom and
> 9192631770 cycles of this resonance are used to define one second of
> time. This transition resonance frequency is electronically divided
> down and used in a feed back control circuit (servo-loop) to keep a
> quartz crystal oscillator locked to a frequency of 5 MHz which is the
> actual output of the clock. Kindly clarify whether in your opinion, the
> Relativity corrections are applied to these atomic clocks in,
> (a) Adjusting the hyperfine transition resonance of Cs-133 atoms?
> (b) Adjusting the servo-loop feed back control circuitary?
> (c) Adjusting the output of the clock by some other means?
> (d) Adjusting the digital output readings of the clock during data
> processing?
>
> Your specific detailed reply will be highly appreciated.
Since it is the rate of time that is affected by motion/gravitational
potential well - this is not a question of the clock being adjusted -
it is a case of comparing the two clocks to see.
Sue...
This is one of the best known examples and there are
thousands of tutorial type pages you can google for
if you want better pictures, animations calculatiors etc:
<< Understanding the relationship between these three quantities lies
at the heart of understanding power engineering. The mathematical
relationship among them can be represented by vectors and is typically
expressed using complex numbers
S = P + jQ (where j is the imaginary unit)
This complex value S is often referred to as the complex power.
Consider an ideal alternating current (AC) circuit consisting
of a source and a generalized load, where both the current
and voltage are sinusoidal. If the load is purely resistive,
the two quantities reverse their polarity at the same time;
the direction of energy flow does not reverse; and only real
power flows. If the load is purely inductive or capacitive, then
the voltage and current are 90 degrees out of phase (for a
capacitor, current leads voltage; for an inductor, current
lags voltage) and there is no net power flow. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_power
What you should notice is where energy is moving
spatialy, (energy is closely related to time), we
use an imaginary time when the energy is not
where we can easily measure or quantify it. >>
The AC circuit examples are a 2 dimensional example.
Minkowski space is a 3d + 1t example.
Conveinenly, the imaginary trignometry operator above
shares many of the same properties when applied
to probabily and statistics so you will see it there
too. Feynman even mixes the two types to derive
probabilty amplitudes that predict photon absorption
for paths that are described classically.
http://www.physics.yorku.ca/undergrad_programme/highsch/Feynm4.html
Space time
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node113.html
Converting from Lorenz to 3d +1t (Coulomb or 'radiation' gauge)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
Time gets very real when you have to pay for a heavy
foot on the accelerator of you car but many calculations
can be simplied when we can take advantage of its
'imaginary' qualities. It is a little more 'maleable' than
space or mass so is the first thing to get picked on
when trying to simplify equations.
Sue...
Bill Hobba
I never believed that. Proper time is invariant.
> Just imagine the state of our world if the
> measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
> satellite and each space craft!!
Since that is not what relativity says your query is silly.
> On the other hand imagine how
> convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
> through out our solar system and in all reference frames.
There is such a measure - it is called proper time.
Bill
>
> GSS
>
Bill Hobba
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> GSS wrote:
>> > Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
>> > satellites and space ships?
>>
>> If you want to examine your beliefs, you are not doing physics.
>
> To question one's deep seated beliefs and dogmas is the beginning of
> Philosophy. And Philosophy must be the guiding spirit while doing
> Physics.
It sure is - at its basis is correspondence experiment.
>
>> To those
>> of us doing physics, _measurements_ are important, not beliefs. Clocks
>> have been _measured_ to vary in tick rate when placed in planes and
>> satellites, as compared to a standard clock such as USNO. We don't have
>> suitable clocks and space ships to test, but there's no reason to expect
>> they would be any different.
>
> The prime reason is the invalidity of second postulate of SR.
Since SR does not even require it anymore all your doing is throwing up
strawmen
> The final test is being planned in PARCS project.
>
>> > Just imagine the state of our world if the
>> > measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
>> > satellite and each space craft!!
>>
>> Your "imagination" is likewise not physics.
>
> The imagination is akin to a computer simulation of a situation or
> process. If you don't have necessary information with you about the
> relevant situation or process, you cannot imagine that situation or
> process. And acquiring relevant information is the preliminary step in
> doing Physics. If you are doing Physics without imagination then 'God'
> save the Physics.
Your logic is erroneous - saying imagination is not physics does not imply
that physics does not use imagination.
QED predicts their behavior perfectly. A clocks proper time is invariant.
>
> Your specific detailed reply will be highly appreciated.
>
It may be appreciated by you never take it on board.
Bill
>
> GSS
>
Tom Roberts
> In Cs atomic clock, the main oscillator is electronically locked to the
> ground state hyperfine transition resonance of Cs-133 atom and
> 9192631770 cycles of this resonance are used to define one second of
> time. This transition resonance frequency is electronically divided
> down and used in a feed back control circuit (servo-loop) to keep a
> quartz crystal oscillator locked to a frequency of 5 MHz which is the
> actual output of the clock. Kindly clarify whether in your opinion, the
> Relativity corrections are applied to these atomic clocks in,
> (a) Adjusting the hyperfine transition resonance of Cs-133 atoms?
> (b) Adjusting the servo-loop feed back control circuitary?
> (c) Adjusting the output of the clock by some other means?
> (d) Adjusting the digital output readings of the clock during data
> processing?
This is not my opinion, this is my _knowledge_ based on reading
documents about the GPS: In the GPS satellites the digital divider is
modified from its standard value so that the output of the clock
corresponds to GPS time in the ECI frame, as long as the clock is in its
designated orbit. The satellite includes additional circuitry that
permits it to accept uploaded corrections from the ground and to
transmit them to GPS receivers along with its timing signals and orbit
parameters.
Tom Roberts
GSS
Tom Roberts wrote:
> GSS wrote:
> > In Cs atomic clock, the main oscillator is electronically locked to the
> > ground state hyperfine transition resonance of Cs-133 atom and
> > 9192631770 cycles of this resonance are used to define one second of
> > time. This transition resonance frequency is electronically divided
> > down and used in a feed back control circuit (servo-loop) to keep a
> > quartz crystal oscillator locked to a frequency of 5 MHz which is the
> > actual output of the clock. Kindly clarify whether in your opinion, the
> > Relativity corrections are applied to these atomic clocks in,
> > (a) Adjusting the hyperfine transition resonance of Cs-133 atoms?
> > (b) Adjusting the servo-loop feed back control circuitary?
> > (c) Adjusting the output of the clock by some other means?
> > (d) Adjusting the digital output readings of the clock during data
> > processing?
> This is not my opinion, this is my _knowledge_ based on reading
> documents about the GPS: In the GPS satellites the digital divider is
> modified from its standard value so that the output of the clock
> corresponds to GPS time in the ECI frame, as long as the clock is in its
> designated orbit.
Kindly clarify whether "the digital divider is modified from its
standard value" *manually* before the launch of the satellite or
*remotely* through command signals from the ground? What is the minimum
step (or resolution) of this *modification* to the digital divider.
Kindly do give the reference to the source of your information.
GSS
dda1
GSS - Shit ForBrains Gurcharn Sandhu wrote:
>
> Kindly clarify whether "the digital divider is modified from its
> standard value" *manually* before the launch of the satellite or
> *remotely* through command signals from the ground? What is the minimum
> step (or resolution) of this *modification* to the digital divider.
> Kindly do give the reference to the source of your information.
>
> GSS
Kindly fuck off, cretinoid Gurcharn Sandhu.
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
GSS wrote:
> I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
> notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
> accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
> time.
>
> Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
I think the 'at par' portion of this definition is weak. If time were
at par with the spatial dimensions then the 4D model would not need to
discriminate so strongly. A quick look at the mathematics of the 4D
models exposes how far off par time is with the spatial dimensions. The
threads discussing time are many on sci.physics. I find the most
compelling argument to be that of clock construction. Time is not
directly measurable as the other dimensions are, as with a ruler or
tape measure or rod. When a clock is created that claims to be an
accurate timepiece it is invariably a piece of geometrical equipment
subject to its environment. The same is true of a ruler, but the
measurement is more direct on the spatial dimensions.
I have an alternate context that allows time to exist at par with space
via a more robust mathematical structure. The polysign numbers
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/PolySigned.html
expose a congruence between one-signed numbers and time. Dimensionality
is intimately tied to sign and for a n signed number system its
dimension is n-1. In other words these one-signed numbers are zero
dimensional. This allows them to be placed in the same structure as the
spatial dimensions without any graphical measure. The usual point
definition of zero dimensional has slightly more in the polysign
domain. In P1 we see the arrow of time and the notion of Now. As Janice
Joplin said
" It's all the same fucking day man."
So time as P1 is very close to nonexistence yet P1 allows arithmetic
operations:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/OneSigned.html
The paradoxical nature of one-signed numbers is admitted. That their
paradoxical nature exactly matches the paradox of time yields
congruence.
Furthermore the natural progression:
P1, P2, P3, ...
has a natural breakpoint beyond P3, where the law
| A B | = | A || B |
breaks. An algebraic product and sum are defined that exist in any
whole dimension that obey the associative, distributive, and
commutative laws of fields in any dimension just as they work in the
reals. Yet under the product the higher dimensions (P4+) misbehave in
terms of the usual geometric distance. The lower three (P1, P2, P3) are
congruent with spacetime. Even if the progression continues the support
for spacetime remains. This suggests that the topology
0D + 1D + 2D ...
or
P1 + P2 + P3 ...
is the appropriate topology for physics rather than
1D + 1D + 1D + 1D .
The higher sign spaces are new and exotic. They are algebraically
similar to the reals so that a general equation like
z1 z2 ( z3 + z4z2) = z1z2z3 + z1z2z2z4
is true in any whole dimension. This is an arithmetic system whose
geometry is directly implied by the sign identity
Sum over s from 1 to n ( s x ) = 0 .
where s is a sign and x is a magnitude.
Attacks on the polysign system and the spacetime topology are welcomed.
I believe they will hold up. The trouble is that to understand them one
has to let go of the reals and allow them to be generated as P2. As a
benefit P3 are the complex numbers which are built with the same rules
as P2 (the reals) just with n up one.
-Tim
> frames just as the universal coordinated time (UTC) or the TAI are
PD
GSS wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > GSS wrote:
> > > I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
> > > notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
> > > accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
> > > time.
> > >
> > > Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
> > > spatial dimension (L). The measure of time is the same in all reference
> > > frames just as the universal coordinated time (UTC) or the TAI are
> > > already accepted by the international scientific community. For
> > > detailed presentation of this notion, kindly refer to,
> > >
> > > http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/time_measure.htm
> > >
> > > GSS
> >
> > You write:
> >
> > "However, due to the over bearing dominance of mathematics during the
> > 20th century, some Mathematicians have started propagating the idea of
> > equivalence of the dimensions of length (L) and time (T). "
> > Right from the start you exhibit a misunderstanding of the subject. I
> > did not read the rest that is. Nobody has ever proposed the
> > ",,,equivalence of the dimensions of length (L) and time (T). "
>
> There are many scientists here in these discussion forums, who insist
> on advocating the use of so called natural units in Physics whereby
> G=c=h=1. Do you want their names?
The dimensions of length and time have opposite sign in the signature
of the metric, and this distinguishes the two. Other than that, there
is no reason to insist that the units of distance and time must be
different. In fact, doing so requires the use of a painful conversion
constant to calculate physically invariant quantitites.
>
> > Instead, space and time are treated in modern physics in the context of
> > a 4-D continuum, what is called space-time or spacetime.
>
> It is OK to use the notion of a 4-D continuum as long as you use it in
> mathematical modeling.
A mathematical model is nothing more than a shorthand version of a
descriptive explanation of how nature behaves, with the crucial
advantage that it allows you to make quantitative predictions that can
be compared with actual experimental measurements. If the mathematical
version of a model consistently matches with experimental measurements,
this lends credence to the accuracy of the longhand version of the
model. If you insist on hanging on to a longhand version of a model
whose mathematical version has known problems matching up with
measurements, simply because the longhand version seems more intuitive,
this is a symptom of wearing blinders.
Furthermore, hanging onto a longhand description because it feels
intuitive and simply dispensing with the mathematical version entirely
as an unnecessary burden accomplishes nothing but the emasculation and
defanging of the model. It is free from the burden of confrontation
with measurement, but it also loses all predictive power, and hence
becomes useless as a model. One simply cannot divorce a longhand
description from its quantitative shorthand description -- it's like
cutting off half a baby because you don't like the way that half looks.
PD
PD
That's ok, that's what the Lorentz transforms are for, to correct for
that nastly little reality.
> On the other hand imagine how
> convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
> through out our solar system and in all reference frames.
>
But that voids the warranty of UTC or TAI, which says that clocks will
only stay in UTC sychronization if they are at rest with respect to
each other. So you have two choices:
a) Only use UTC and TAI for clocks that are at rest with respect to
each other
b) Force the resynchronization of all other clocks to UTC periodically,
and in between synchronizations the clocks will steadily desynchronize.
You seem to think we have a choice in how time works, and that we can
dictate it, rather than us just trying to figure out how it works.
PD
GSS
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> In article <1150634182....@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, GSS
> <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
> > satellites and space ships? Just imagine the state of our world if the
> > measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
> > satellite and each space craft!! On the other hand imagine how
> > convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
> > through out our solar system and in all reference frames.
>
> You mean like a *proper* *Time*, perhaps with a *proper* *distance* to
> go with it?
Yes, I mean the UTC or TAI are measures of proper time in ICRF or
through out the solar system. And the 'meter' is a measure of proper
distance in ICRF.
GSS
dda1
FuckedInTheAss Gurcharn Sandhu wrote:
> Yes, I mean the UTC or TAI are measures of proper time in ICRF or
> through out the solar system. And the 'meter' is a measure of proper
> distance in ICRF.
>
> GSS
Dirk, quikly, this is a Monumental Immortal Fumble.
Listen , Gurcharn, didn't your mama tell you to take your cock out of
your mouth when you talk?
T Wake
Hmm. You are posting from Google, yet seem incapable of using it (or even
Wiki at a push) to do a background check before you post. Interesting.
GSS
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> In article <1150854683.4...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, GSS
> And you're refuting relativity?
>
As per SR the 'proper' time in any particular reference frame K is the
time measured by a clock which is at rest in K.
I have already pointed out in this discussion forum that in SR it has
been assumed that speed of light in vacuum will be constant c in all
inertial frames K1, K2, K3 etc. in relative uniform motion. This
assumption has been built into the invariance of space-time interval,
dS^2 = (dx)^2 + (dy)^2 +(dz)^2 -(ct)^2 ..... In frame K
= (dx')^2 + (dy')^2 +(dz')^2 -(ct')^2 ......In frame K1
= (dx'')^2 + (dy'')^2 +(dz'')^2 -(ct'')^2 ...In frame K2
As a consequence of this assumption the measure of time and distance
becomes relative and different in each of the frames K, K1, K2 etc. in
accordance with Lorentz transformations.
However, within our solar system, if we use just one common reference
system K in which the speed of light c is a constant and the measure
of time and distance is absolute then there is no problem of clock
synchronization. In this regard kindly refer to the Two-way Satellite
Time Transfer Technique which ensures global synchronization of clocks
within one nano-second accuracy.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/twoway.html
http://www.bipm.fr/en/scientific/tai/tai.html
Within the solar system, there may be an infinitely large number of
particles/objects in relative motion (e.g. trains, aircraft,
satellites, planets etc.) with which we could attach reference frames
K1, K2, K3 etc. But the measure of time t is still required to be the
same common measures (like UTC) as applicable in K.
Since the measure of time t is the same in reference frames K, K1, K2,
K3 etc. with in the solar system, this measure of time t obviously
constitutes 'proper' time for all these reference frames.
The precise problem is here. SR requires the measure of time in
reference frames K1, K2 etc to be different t', t'' etc. As such SR
implies that even if you synchronize two clocks at a common location
(frame K) with any required precision, they will no longer remain
synchronized when any one of them is shifted to a different reference
frame K1, K2 etc. in relative motion. It is the notion of t', t'' etc.
which is the root cause of the notion of 'proper' time being different
in different reference frames.
The very fact that for all reference frames K1, K2, K3 etc. in relative
motion within our solar system, the measure of time in actual practice
is the same absolute measure t (UTC or TAI), it shows that the speed of
light is not constrained to be the same value in all reference frames
K1, K2, K3 etc. in relative motion within K. Hence in actual practice,
with the adoption of one common standard of time within the solar
system, the SR is already rendered null and void within our solar
system.
GSS
Phineas T Puddleduck
<gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> > In article <1150854683.4...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, GSS
> > <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> >>> In article <1150634182....@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, GSS
> >>> <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
> >>>> satellites and space ships? Just imagine the state of our world if the
> >>>> measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
> >>>> satellite and each space craft!! On the other hand imagine how
> >>>> convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
> >>>> through out our solar system and in all reference frames.
> >>>
> >>> You mean like a *proper* *Time*, perhaps with a *proper* *distance* to
> >>> go with it?
> >>
> > > Yes, I mean the UTC or TAI are measures of proper time in ICRF or
> > > through out the solar system. And the 'meter' is a measure of proper
> > > distance in ICRF.
> > >
> > > GSS
> > >
> > So you have no idea what proper time and proper distance actually are?
> > And you're refuting relativity?
> >
>
> As per SR the 'proper' time in any particular reference frame K is the
> time measured by a clock which is at rest in K.
>
So you went and looked it up - rather then further reveal your
stupidity !!
dda1
> The very fact that for all reference frames K1, K2, K3 etc. in relative
> motion within our solar system, the measure of time in actual practice
> is the same absolute measure t (UTC or TAI), it shows that the speed of
> light is not constrained to be the same value in all reference frames
> K1, K2, K3 etc. in relative motion within K. Hence in actual practice,
> with the adoption of one common standard of time within the solar
> system, the SR is already rendered null and void within our solar
> system.
>
>
Note that I didn't snipe you this time , ShitHead. The above quote is
an Immortal Fumble.
Now, put the piece of shit back in your mouth and scrarm.
GSS
Well, I have only written 'As per SR ...'
You did not read the complete argument. Kindly read it now carefully.
Phineas T Puddleduck
<gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > So you went and looked it up - rather then further reveal your
> > stupidity !!
>
> Well, I have only written 'As per SR ...'
> You did not read the complete argument. Kindly read it now carefully.
So you admit you had no clue of proper time and distance before this,
and still you try and refute relativity.
GSS
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> In article <1150996469.5...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, GSS
> <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > So you went and looked it up - rather then further reveal your
> > > stupidity !!
> >
> > Well, I have only written 'As per SR ...'
> > You did not read the complete argument. Kindly read it now carefully.
>
> So you admit you had no clue of proper time and distance before this,
> and still you try and refute relativity.
No, You are getting it wrong - perhaps intentionally.
GSS
Bilge
>> GSS wrote:
>> > Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
>> > satellites and space ships?
>>
>> If you want to examine your beliefs, you are not doing physics.
>
>To question one's deep seated beliefs and dogmas is the beginning of
>Philosophy. And Philosophy must be the guiding spirit while doing
>Physics.
>
>> To those
>> of us doing physics, _measurements_ are important, not beliefs. Clocks
>> have been _measured_ to vary in tick rate when placed in planes and
>> satellites, as compared to a standard clock such as USNO. We don't have
>> suitable clocks and space ships to test, but there's no reason to expect
>> they would be any different.
>
>The prime reason is the invalidity of second postulate of SR.
second postulate is only relevant to the validity of maxwell's
equations.
[...]
>> Your "imagination" is likewise not physics.
>
>The imagination is akin to a computer simulation of a situation or
>process. If you don't have necessary information with you about the
>relevant situation or process, you cannot imagine that situation or
>process. And acquiring relevant information is the preliminary step in
>doing Physics. If you are doing Physics without imagination then 'God'
>save the Physics.
All imagination is not created equal. Imagination in science is
subject to experimental validation in proving its usefulnes. If
you have a problem with that, write science fiction.
[...]
>In Cs atomic clock, the main oscillator is electronically locked to the
>ground state hyperfine transition resonance of Cs-133 atom and
>9192631770 cycles of this resonance are used to define one second of
>time. This transition resonance frequency is electronically divided
>down and used in a feed back control circuit (servo-loop) to keep a
>quartz crystal oscillator locked to a frequency of 5 MHz which is the
>actual output of the clock. Kindly clarify whether in your opinion, the
>Relativity corrections are applied to these atomic clocks in,
>(a) Adjusting the hyperfine transition resonance of Cs-133 atoms?
You cannot ``adjust'' the transitions of an atom (unless you know
how to alter the electromagnetic coupling constant, and just forgot
to publish that amazing discovery).
>(b) Adjusting the servo-loop feed back control circuitary?
>(c) Adjusting the output of the clock by some other means?
The only ``adjustment'' is peaking the resonance. Nature determines
the resonance.
>(d) Adjusting the digital output readings of the clock during data
>processing?
Apparently, you do not understand the concept of defining a standard of
measurement. The number of cycles counted does not depend on any model
(except a definition of the integers, if you want to call counting a
model). A second is _defined_ as 9192631770 cycles, regardless of anything
else.