A clock second is not a universal interval of time.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
Next: Simultaneity of Relativity
From: Y.Porat on 10 Oct 2009 01:34 On Oct 10, 12:47 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3e9bcd50-67fd-48e1-8f1c-2a0841c15459(a)l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> > to describe relative motion to some arbitrary > >> >> >> >> > chosen MOTION REFERENCE !! > > >> >> >> >> > (it might be the suns or moons or your clock > >> >> >> >> > or atomic movement whatever ) > >> >> >> >> > it is a very useful human invention! > > >> >> >> >> Nicely put > > >> >> >> > -------------- > >> >> >> > thanks > >> >> >> > i hardly believe my eys > >> >> >> > didn Indetial agree with me?? > >> >> >> > how come you agree with a crackpot ?? > >> >> >> > that is not a prof of physics ?? (:-) > > >> >> >> I take every thing people say on its own merit. > > >> >> Noone thinks we know it all. I doubt we every really will. > > >> >> > 3 > >> >> > btw > >> >> > do you know when did i got to that above insight about Time > >> >> > ??? > >> >> > it was about while i was 16 years old !!.... > >> >> > i had a teacher of physics that made me to like > >> >> > and admire physics ..... > > >> >> That is very admirable. > > >> >> > anyway > >> >> > it was **my own** insight not his .... > > >> >> Its not an uncommon one. Mankind has been dealing with issues such as > >> >> "what > >> >> is time" for a long long time. > >> >> ------------------------ > >> > OHHHHH !!!now i see > >> > you claim now that my above insight about Time is** not new** > > >> Of course it is not > > >> > ie precedent-ed ?? (:-) > >> > if so > >> > PLEASE SHOW US by documentation that IT IS PRECEDENT-ED !! > > >> Oh gawd .. not this AGAIN. > > >> Try wikipedia for a start > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time > > > > ------------- > > you quoted a lot of phylosophy abut time > > whether there is an absolute time or if it is > > one of natures basics > > but i ddint see there my definition of time > > as > > **motion comparison to some arbitrary motion reference **!! > > Do i need to go hunting for that as well? > ---------------------- no but the moment you say it is precedent ed the burden of proofe is on you !! ------------ > I was looking at your claim that the flow of time is a human invention > /perception > > > and non of them stated that > > if all those motion references > > will change by the same rate > > (including the elctrons in your brain etc )--- > > NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO NOTICE IT !! > > As Lorentz claimed. >---------------------- Lorentz is dealing withtime shortening but he was not dealing with us as huiman beings in that picture we might travel in a space craft but we will not be younger because of that travel !! the biologic process is much more complex than a simple two body combination so we will be able to notice a relative change in time measurement but still we will keep our human clock' that is different and not changing by movement . so despite that the mecahnical clock will show different times our human clock will remain the same and even there will be the human clock and the travling changing clock *we will not be able to notivce the difference ** (because we are dependent only on the outer clock by evaluating time so my 'gedanken expariment (i guess that you as a German speaker will spell Gedanken' better thyan me isnt that so ??) so my gedanken experiment is not about a few systems time test but a thought experiment about waht willhappen if ALL MOVEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE IS CHANGING AT HTE SAME RATE ie *we as well as a sort of a human machine will change allour biologic processes at rhe same rate will not be able to notice a symoltanic change of rate of all the universe Lorentz was not dealing with that aspect!! moreover Lorentz WAS NOT DEALING WITHTHE **DEFINITION OF TIME** THAT I DID ! qualitatively as movement comparison he took that concept of time **as a known concept* without entering tothe basic definition of time ie he was dealing with some **Quantitative* aspects of time not dealing withthe more basic aspect about what is the** defibition of time !!* and not the gedanken experiment about what will happen if all the universe will change rate of relative movement that is unprecedented only by me unless you bring preceding evidence !! ------------------- and you rightly replied with an appreciating remark about how i was dealing with it !! ---------------------------- > > (if i am not wrong that is unprecedented > > > > bot a human arbitrary definition > > As I showed in the quotes above. Though obviously there is something that > we perceive as time .. otherwise we couldn't measure it. That it "flows" > can be said to be a human 'invention' >-------------- ok --------- > > a lot of your references are talking about > > the *universal time * ie something that is not > > human defined ! > > No .. it is talking about it BEING human defined. > > > ie > > not dependent on human existence > > i showed among the others that here is no universal time > > that is sort of independent on human existence > > etc etc > > So if you killed everybody, then time would stop and nothing would ever > change? ---------------- still you ddint got my idea ?? i **defined Time as** relative ***motion ***comparison!! no matter if someone is measuring it or not !! if someone is measuring it it is the **human time **!! if **no *** human being **will exist RELATIVE ****MOTION OF MATTER*** WILL STILL ***GO ON !!!*** hope we made it clear at last (:-) ATB Y.Porat --------------------------
From: Inertial on 10 Oct 2009 05:39 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:9e07de03-f6b8-4d7c-9e3c-1add62f89469(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 10, 12:47 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:3e9bcd50-67fd-48e1-8f1c-2a0841c15459(a)l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com... >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > to describe relative motion to some arbitrary >> >> >> >> >> > chosen MOTION REFERENCE !! >> >> >> >> >> >> > (it might be the suns or moons or your clock >> >> >> >> >> > or atomic movement whatever ) >> >> >> >> >> > it is a very useful human invention! >> >> >> >> >> >> Nicely put >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- >> >> >> >> > thanks >> >> >> >> > i hardly believe my eys >> >> >> >> > didn Indetial agree with me?? >> >> >> >> > how come you agree with a crackpot ?? >> >> >> >> > that is not a prof of physics ?? (:-) >> >> >> >> >> I take every thing people say on its own merit. >> > > >> >> >> Noone thinks we know it all. I doubt we every really will. >> >> >> >> > 3 >> >> >> > btw >> >> >> > do you know when did i got to that above insight about >> >> >> > Time >> >> >> > ??? >> >> >> > it was about while i was 16 years old !!.... >> >> >> > i had a teacher of physics that made me to like >> >> >> > and admire physics ..... >> >> >> >> That is very admirable. >> >> >> >> > anyway >> >> >> > it was **my own** insight not his .... >> >> >> >> Its not an uncommon one. Mankind has been dealing with issues such >> >> >> as >> >> >> "what >> >> >> is time" for a long long time. >> >> >> ------------------------ >> >> > OHHHHH !!!now i see >> >> > you claim now that my above insight about Time is** not new** >> >> >> Of course it is not >> >> >> > ie precedent-ed ?? (:-) >> >> > if so >> >> > PLEASE SHOW US by documentation that IT IS PRECEDENT-ED !! >> >> >> Oh gawd .. not this AGAIN. >> >> >> Try wikipedia for a start >> >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time >> > > > >> >> > ------------- >> > you quoted a lot of phylosophy abut time >> > whether there is an absolute time or if it is >> > one of natures basics >> > but i ddint see there my definition of time >> > as >> > **motion comparison to some arbitrary motion reference **!! >> >> Do i need to go hunting for that as well? >> ---------------------- > no > but the moment you say it is precedent ed > the burden of proofe is on you !! No .. you are claiming it is unprecedented and your own original idea .. the burden is on you. > ------------ > >> I was looking at your claim that the flow of time is a human invention >> /perception >> >> > and non of them stated that >> > if all those motion references >> > will change by the same rate >> > (including the elctrons in your brain etc )--- >> > NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO NOTICE IT !! >> >> As Lorentz claimed. >>---------------------- > Lorentz is dealing withtime shortening No .. with clocks slowing .. but that one cannot notice the change because everything slows the same amount. Exact same idea as yours > but he was not dealing with us as huiman > beings in that picture Add humans in .. doesn't matter. if there is no measurable difference when everything slows that same, then noone will be able to notice it. > we might travel in a space craft > but we will not be younger because of that travel > !! Yes .. we will. But that's is beside the point > the biologic process is much more complex than > a simple two body combination > so > we will be able to notice a relative change in time measurement Wrong > but > still we will keep our > human clock' that is different and not changing by movement . Wrong > so despite that the mecahnical clock will show different times > our human clock will remain the same > and even there will be the human clock > and the travling changing clock > *we will not be able to notivce the difference ** Because everything slows > (because we are dependent only on the outer clock by evaluating time > so my 'gedanken expariment > (i guess that > you as a German speaker I know a few words of German, and a few of french. > will spell Gedanken' > better thyan me isnt that so ??) > so > my gedanken experiment is not about > a few systems time test > but a thought experiment > about waht willhappen if > ALL MOVEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE > IS CHANGING AT HTE SAME RATE Like LET says happens > ie > *we as well as a sort of a human machine will change allour > biologic processes at rhe same rate > will not be able to notice a symoltanic > change of rate of all the universe As Lorentz LET says > Lorentz was not dealing with that aspect!! Yes .. he was > moreover > Lorentz WAS NOT DEALING WITHTHE **DEFINITION OF TIME** THAT I DID ! The definition of flow of time as being an 'invention' of human perception is very old. Of course, its philosophy and psychology rather than physics > qualitatively as movement comparison That's how we always measure time > he took that concept of time > **as a known concept* without entering tothe basic definition of time Because its a matter of philosophy. Measuring what we call time is physics > ie > he was dealing with some **Quantitative* aspects > of time > not dealing withthe more basic aspect > about what is the** defibition of time !!* Philosophers have dealt with that for centuries > and not the gedanken experiment > about what will happen if all the universe > will change rate of relative movement > > that is unprecedented only by me Get over yourself. you are not that smart > unless you bring preceding evidence !! You have to prove it > and you rightly replied with an appreciating > remark about how i was dealing with it !! > ---------------------------- > > >> > (if i am not wrong that is unprecedented >> >> >> > bot a human arbitrary definition >> >> As I showed in the quotes above. Though obviously there is something >> that >> we perceive as time .. otherwise we couldn't measure it. That it "flows" >> can be said to be a human 'invention' >>-------------- > ok > --------- >> > a lot of your references are talking about >> > the *universal time * ie something that is not >> > human defined ! >> >> No .. it is talking about it BEING human defined. >> >> > ie >> > not dependent on human existence >> > i showed among the others that here is no universal time >> > that is sort of independent on human existence >> > etc etc >> >> So if you killed everybody, then time would stop and nothing would ever >> change? > ---------------- > still you ddint got my idea ?? Of course I od.. its been around for ages > i **defined Time as** > relative ***motion ***comparison!! yes yes .. thats idea is as old as the hills > no matter if someone is measuring it or not !! You said that time was dependant on human existence > if someone is measuring it > it is the **human time **!! > > if **no *** human being **will exist > RELATIVE ****MOTION OF MATTER*** WILL STILL ***GO ON !!!*** > hope we made it clear at last (:-) So you're talking about the perception of time flowing. All your ideas have been around for a long long time.
From: Y.Porat on 10 Oct 2009 06:40 On Oct 10, 11:39 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:9e07de03-f6b8-4d7c-9e3c-1add62f89469(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Oct 10, 12:47 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:3e9bcd50-67fd-48e1-8f1c-2a0841c15459(a)l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com.... > > >> >> >> >> >> > to describe relative motion to some arbitrary > >> >> >> >> >> > chosen MOTION REFERENCE !! > > >> >> >> >> >> > (it might be the suns or moons or your clock > >> >> >> >> >> > or atomic movement whatever ) > >> >> >> >> >> > it is a very useful human invention! > > >> >> >> >> >> Nicely put > > >> >> >> >> > -------------- > >> >> >> >> > thanks > >> >> >> >> > i hardly believe my eys > >> >> >> >> > didn Indetial agree with me?? > >> >> >> >> > how come you agree with a crackpot ?? > >> >> >> >> > that is not a prof of physics ?? (:-) > > >> >> >> >> I take every thing people say on its own merit. > > >> >> >> Noone thinks we know it all. I doubt we every really will. > > >> >> >> > 3 > >> >> >> > btw > >> >> >> > do you know when did i got to that above insight about > >> >> >> > Time > >> >> >> > ??? > >> >> >> > it was about while i was 16 years old !!.... > >> >> >> > i had a teacher of physics that made me to like > >> >> >> > and admire physics ..... > > >> >> >> That is very admirable. > > >> >> >> > anyway > >> >> >> > it was **my own** insight not his .... > > >> >> >> Its not an uncommon one. Mankind has been dealing with issues such > >> >> >> as > >> >> >> "what > >> >> >> is time" for a long long time. > >> >> >> ------------------------ > >> >> > OHHHHH !!!now i see > >> >> > you claim now that my above insight about Time is** not new** > > >> >> Of course it is not > > >> >> > ie precedent-ed ?? (:-) > >> >> > if so > >> >> > PLEASE SHOW US by documentation that IT IS PRECEDENT-ED !! > > >> >> Oh gawd .. not this AGAIN. > > >> >> Try wikipedia for a start > > >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time > > >> > ------------- > >> > you quoted a lot of phylosophy abut time > >> > whether there is an absolute time or if it is > >> > one of natures basics > >> > but i ddint see there my definition of time > >> > as > >> > **motion comparison to some arbitrary motion reference **!! > > >> Do i need to go hunting for that as well? > >> ---------------------- > > no > > but the moment you say it is precedent ed > > the burden of proofe is on you !! > > No .. you are claiming it is unprecedented and your own original idea .. the > burden is on you. > > > ------------ > > >> I was looking at your claim that the flow of time is a human invention > >> /perception > > >> > and non of them stated that > >> > if all those motion references > >> > will change by the same rate > >> > (including the elctrons in your brain etc )--- > >> > NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO NOTICE IT !! > > >> As Lorentz claimed. > >>---------------------- > > Lorentz is dealing withtime shortening > > No .. with clocks slowing .. but that one cannot notice the change because > everything slows the same amount. > > Exact same idea as yours > > > but he was not dealing with us as huiman > > beings in that picture > > Add humans in .. doesn't matter. if there is no measurable difference when > everything slows that same, then noone will be able to notice it. > > > we might travel in a space craft > > but we will not be younger because of that travel > > !! > > Yes .. we will. But that's is beside the point > > > the biologic process is much more complex than > > a simple two body combination > > so > > we will be able to notice a relative change in time measurement > > Wrong > > > but > > still we will keep our > > human clock' that is different and not changing by movement . > > Wrong > > > so despite that the mecahnical clock will show different times > > our human clock will remain the same > > and even there will be the human clock > > and the travling changing clock > > *we will not be able to notivce the difference ** > > Because everything slows > > > (because we are dependent only on the outer clock by evaluating time > > so my 'gedanken expariment > > (i guess that > > you as a German speaker > > I know a few words of German, and a few of french. > > > will spell Gedanken' > > better thyan me isnt that so ??) > > so > > my gedanken experiment is not about > > a few systems time test > > but a thought experiment > > about waht willhappen if > > ALL MOVEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE > > IS CHANGING AT HTE SAME RATE > > Like LET says happens > > > ie > > *we as well as a sort of a human machine will change allour > > biologic processes at rhe same rate > > will not be able to notice a symoltanic > > change of rate of all the universe > > As Lorentz LET says > > > Lorentz was not dealing with that aspect!! > > Yes .. he was > > > moreover > > Lorentz WAS NOT DEALING WITHTHE **DEFINITION OF TIME** THAT I DID ! > > The definition of flow of time as being an 'invention' of human perception > is very old. Of course, its philosophy and psychology rather than physics > > > qualitatively as movement comparison > > That's how we always measure time > > > he took that concept of time > > **as a known concept* without entering tothe basic definition of time > > Because its a matter of philosophy. Measuring what we call time is physics > > > ie > > he was dealing with some **Quantitative* aspects > > of time > > not dealing withthe more basic aspect > > about what is the** defibition of time !!* > > Philosophers have dealt with that for centuries > > > and not the gedanken experiment > > about what will happen if all the universe > > will change rate of relative movement > > > that is unprecedented only by me > > Get over yourself. you are not that smart > > > unless you bring preceding evidence !! > > You have to prove it > > > > > and you rightly replied with an appreciating > > remark about how i was dealing with it !! > > ---------------------------- > > >> > (if i am not wrong that is unprecedented > > >> > bot a human arbitrary definition > > >> As I showed in the quotes above. Though obviously there is something > >> that > >> we perceive as time .. otherwise we couldn't measure it. That it "flows" > >> can be said to be a human 'invention' > >>-------------- > > ok > > --------- > >> > a lot of your references are talking about > >> > the *universal time * ie something that is not > >> > human defined ! > > >> No .. it is talking about it BEING human defined. > > >> > ie > >> > not dependent on human existence > >> > i showed among the others that here is no universal time > >> > that is sort of independent on human existence > >> > etc etc > > >> So if you killed everybody, then time would stop and nothing would ever > >> change? > > ---------------- > > still you ddint got my idea ?? > > Of course I od.. its been around for ages > > > i **defined Time as** > > relative ***motion ***comparison!! > > yes yes .. thats idea is as old as the hills > > > no matter if someone is measuring it or not !! > > You said that time was dependant on human existence > > > if someone is measuring it > > it is the **human time **!! > > > if **no *** human being **will exist > > RELATIVE ****MOTION OF MATTER*** WILL STILL ***GO ON !!!*** > > hope we made it clear at last (:-) > > So you're talking about the perception of time flowing. > > All your ideas have been around for a long long time. -------------------- just bring one qupte that say that even id you tarvel at the highest speed you wilol never ne younger because the humanbiology is muchmore complicated that a two body motion you forgot all that tween story that was dealth withalong a whole century !! th eburden of profe is on you and you willnot do it because itis nonexistant 2 youcan never prove thaty something is unpresedented unless you show it is precedented if youdont get it go discuss with someone else not with me btw idont believe you ar so stupid not to understand it if it was the other way you claim that some of your ideas is unprecedented and metelling you just prove it is unprecedented you would say it is your job to prove itis precedented it sttrts to be a problem of honesty !! 2 show me a precedent to my gedanken experiment ( btw do you swear you know only a few words in German ?? ie less than say 5000 )?? ie the gedanken experiment that says suppose every thing in hunivers **including ****allthe biological process in your body** will stop doyou have explicit quotes or else you are HAND WAVING! it is about us as a human machine **and the time problem** ie if we see ouside us motion of two bodies our human machine is not changing because of that movement and we** can notice that change!! because our machine body *does not change its rate and it is different than the case in which we as well as a humen machine change our biologic pprocess *exactly the same rate as the two bodies we see** (tthatis an immaginary that will never occure to us as living bodies !! it is only a thought experiment so it is unprecedented experiment even if you stand on your head you will not bring quotes like that so just bring quotes like that exactly as i presented it and dont just hand wave as you did untill now !! Y.P -----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 11 Oct 2009 02:16 On Oct 11, 3:10 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3fc2ee93-f150-4c2a-a4c9-74ed5569d3e7(a)j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Oct 10, 11:39 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:9e07de03-f6b8-4d7c-9e3c-1add62f89469(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Oct 10, 12:47 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:3e9bcd50-67fd-48e1-8f1c-2a0841c15459(a)l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > to describe relative motion to some arbitrary > >> >> >> >> >> >> > chosen MOTION REFERENCE !! > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > (it might be the suns or moons or your clock > >> >> >> >> >> >> > or atomic movement whatever ) > >> >> >> >> >> >> > it is a very useful human invention! > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Nicely put > > >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- > >> >> >> >> >> > thanks > >> >> >> >> >> > i hardly believe my eys > >> >> >> >> >> > didn Indetial agree with me?? > >> >> >> >> >> > how come you agree with a crackpot ?? > >> >> >> >> >> > that is not a prof of physics ?? (:-) > > >> >> >> >> >> I take every thing people say on its own merit. > > >> >> >> >> Noone thinks we know it all. I doubt we every really will. > > >> >> >> >> > 3 > >> >> >> >> > btw > >> >> >> >> > do you know when did i got to that above insight about > >> >> >> >> > Time > >> >> >> >> > ??? > >> >> >> >> > it was about while i was 16 years old !!.... > >> >> >> >> > i had a teacher of physics that made me to like > >> >> >> >> > and admire physics ..... > > >> >> >> >> That is very admirable. > > >> >> >> >> > anyway > >> >> >> >> > it was **my own** insight not his .... > > >> >> >> >> Its not an uncommon one. Mankind has been dealing with issues > >> >> >> >> such > >> >> >> >> as > >> >> >> >> "what > >> >> >> >> is time" for a long long time. > >> >> >> >> ------------------------ > >> >> >> > OHHHHH !!!now i see > >> >> >> > you claim now that my above insight about Time is** not > >> >> >> > new** > > >> >> >> Of course it is not > > >> >> >> > ie precedent-ed ?? (:-) > >> >> >> > if so > >> >> >> > PLEASE SHOW US by documentation that IT IS PRECEDENT-ED !! > > >> >> >> Oh gawd .. not this AGAIN. > > >> >> >> Try wikipedia for a start > > >> >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time > > >> >> > ------------- > >> >> > you quoted a lot of phylosophy abut time > >> >> > whether there is an absolute time or if it is > >> >> > one of natures basics > >> >> > but i ddint see there my definition of time > >> >> > as > >> >> > **motion comparison to some arbitrary motion reference **!! > > >> >> Do i need to go hunting for that as well? > >> >> ---------------------- > >> > no > >> > but the moment you say it is precedent ed > >> > the burden of proofe is on you !! > > >> No .. you are claiming it is unprecedented and your own original idea ... > >> the > >> burden is on you. > > >> > ------------ > > >> >> I was looking at your claim that the flow of time is a human invention > >> >> /perception > > >> >> > and non of them stated that > >> >> > if all those motion references > >> >> > will change by the same rate > >> >> > (including the elctrons in your brain etc )--- > >> >> > NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO NOTICE IT !! > > >> >> As Lorentz claimed. > >> >>---------------------- > >> > Lorentz is dealing withtime shortening > > >> No .. with clocks slowing .. but that one cannot notice the change > >> because > >> everything slows the same amount. > > >> Exact same idea as yours > > >> > but he was not dealing with us as huiman > >> > beings in that picture > > >> Add humans in .. doesn't matter. if there is no measurable difference > >> when > >> everything slows that same, then noone will be able to notice it. > > >> > we might travel in a space craft > >> > but we will not be younger because of that travel > >> > !! > > >> Yes .. we will. But that's is beside the point > > >> > the biologic process is much more complex than > >> > a simple two body combination > >> > so > >> > we will be able to notice a relative change in time measurement > > >> Wrong > > >> > but > >> > still we will keep our > >> > human clock' that is different and not changing by movement . > > >> Wrong > > >> > so despite that the mecahnical clock will show different times > >> > our human clock will remain the same > >> > and even there will be the human clock > >> > and the travling changing clock > >> > *we will not be able to notivce the difference ** > > >> Because everything slows > > >> > (because we are dependent only on the outer clock by evaluating time > >> > so my 'gedanken expariment > >> > (i guess that > >> > you as a German speaker > > >> I know a few words of German, and a few of french. > > >> > will spell Gedanken' > >> > better thyan me isnt that so ??) > >> > so > >> > my gedanken experiment is not about > >> > a few systems time test > >> > but a thought experiment > >> > about waht willhappen if > >> > ALL MOVEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE > >> > IS CHANGING AT HTE SAME RATE > > >> Like LET says happens > > >> > ie > >> > *we as well as a sort of a human machine will change allour > >> > biologic processes at rhe same rate > >> > will not be able to notice a symoltanic > >> > change of rate of all the universe > > >> As Lorentz LET says > > >> > Lorentz was not dealing with that aspect!! > > >> Yes .. he was > > >> > moreover > >> > Lorentz WAS NOT DEALING WITHTHE **DEFINITION OF TIME** THAT I DID ! > > >> The definition of flow of time as being an 'invention' of human > >> perception > >> is very old. Of course, its philosophy and psychology rather than > >> physics > > >> > qualitatively as movement comparison > > >> That's how we always measure time > > >> > he took that concept of time > >> > **as a known concept* without entering tothe basic definition of time > > >> Because its a matter of philosophy. Measuring what we call time is > >> physics > > >> > ie > >> > he was dealing with some **Quantitative* aspects > >> > of time > >> > not dealing withthe more basic aspect > >> > about what is the** defibition of time !!* > > >> Philosophers have dealt with that for centuries > > >> > and not the gedanken experiment > >> > about what will happen if all the universe > >> > will change rate of relative movement > > >> > that is unprecedented only by me > > >> Get over yourself. you are not that smart > > >> > unless you bring preceding evidence !! > > >> You have to prove it > > >> > and you rightly replied with an appreciating > >> > remark about how i was dealing with it !! > >> > ---------------------------- > > >> >> > (if i am not wrong that is unprecedented > > >> >> > bot a human arbitrary definition > > >> >> As I showed in the quotes above. Though obviously there is something > >> >> that > >> >> we perceive as time .. otherwise we couldn't measure it. That it > >> >> "flows" > >> >> can be said to be a human 'invention' > >> >>-------------- > >> > ok > >> > --------- > >> >> > a lot of your references are talking about > >> >> > the *universal time * ie something that is not > >> >> > human defined ! > > >> >> No .. it is talking about it BEING human defined. > > >> >> > ie > >> >> > not dependent on human existence > >> >> > i showed among the others that here is no universal time > >> >> > that is sort of independent on human existence > >> >> > etc etc > > >> >> So if you killed everybody, then time would stop and nothing would > >> >> ever > >> >> change? > >> > ---------------- > >> > still you ddint got my idea ?? > > >> Of course I od.. its been around for ages > > >> > i **defined Time as** > >> > relative ***motion ***comparison!! > > >> yes yes .. thats idea is as old as the hills > > >> > no matter if someone is measuring it or not !! > > >> You said that time was dependant on human existence > > >> > if someone is measuring it > >> > it is the **human time **!! > > >> > if **no *** human being **will exist > >> > RELATIVE ****MOTION OF MATTER*** WILL STILL ***GO ON !!!*** > >> > hope we made it clear at last (:-) > > >> So you're talking about the perception of time flowing. > > >> All your ideas have been around for a long long time. > > > -------------------- > > just bring one qupte that say > > that > > even id you tarvel at the highest speed > > you wilol never ne younger > > because > > the humanbiology is muchmore complicated > > that a two body motion > > That is your claim .. it is wrong > > > you forgot all that tween story that was dealth > > withalong a whole century !! > > Eh? > > > th eburden of profe is on you > > and you willnot do it because itis nonexistant > > Burden of proof for what? > > > > > 2 > > youcan never prove thaty something is > > unpresedented unless you show > > it is precedented > > if youdont get it > > go discuss with someone else not with me > > btw > > idont believe you ar so stupid not to understand it > > if it was the other way > > you claim that some of your ideas is unprecedented > > and metelling you > > just prove it is unprecedented > > you would say > > it is your job to prove itis precedented > > it sttrts to be a problem of honesty !! > > 2 > > show me a precedent to my gedanken experiment > > What gedanken experiment? > > > ( btw do you swear you know only a few words in German ?? ie less > > than say 5000 )?? > > What does it mater? > ---------------------- Mr Inertial just take it in acount that for a semi intelligent person (like me ) no answer is good enough as an answer it is clear to me that you are a German speaker !!! ----------------- > > ie > > the gedanken experiment that > > says suppose every thing in hunivers > > **including ****allthe biological process in your body** will stop > > Its just common sense. we are not spaeking about common semse all physicvs should be common sense!!! th eissue is even if it is common sense WAS THAT PREDECENTED!! yet your a re twisting and swinging and boggling all for just not to allow me any slightest credit!! for personal politics reasons !!! (or may be jealousy !!??) ------------ ------------ If all processes run slower by the same amount, then > you could not notice a difference. LET relies on that for why we cannot > detect movement throuhg the aether. > > > doyou have explicit quotes or else > > you are > > HAND WAVING! > > I don't have time to go searching for explicit quotes. Its all just well even if you will spend all your life on it you will not find a precedence to that (**before me** may be one day you will relate it to yourself ??(:-) because it is only me who remember how it was created in my mind. as well as many other precedences of mine !! BYE Y.Porat -------------------------- >
From: kenseto on 13 Oct 2009 10:16
On Oct 8, 3:42 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > kens...(a)erinet.com wrote: > > On Oct 7, 12:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> kens...(a)erinet.com wrote: > >>> On Oct 6, 5:37 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >>>> You got yer cart before yer chicken, Seto. The propagation of > >>>> light existed long long before humings came up with some way to > >>>> measure it. > >>>> This in important, Seto, so pay attention! Light is used as > >>>> a standard to DEFINE both units of distance and units of time.. > >>>> So join the 20th and 21st centuries, Seto! > >>> Wormy using the speed of light to define units of distance and time is > >>> circular. > >> That's you opinion (and incorrect at that), Seto. > > > That's not just my opinion.....the speed of light is a circular > > definition as follows: > > 1 light-second/1 second. > > This means that the speed of light can be anything you want. > > This means that I can walk at a speed of c as follows: > > 1 walk meter = 1/299,792,458 walk second. > > Therefore my walking speed is 299,792,458 walk-meters/1 second. > > >> Ref:http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html > > >> Unit of time - second > >> "The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation > >> corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of > >> the ground state of the cesium 133 atom". > > >> Seto--This definition has nothing to so with length! > > > Sure it got everything to do with length.....the current definition > > for length is: > > 1 meter = 1/299,792,458 light second. > > >> Unit of length - meter > >> "The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during > >> a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second". > > > So the definition for a unit of time also defines the unit of > > length ....Right? > > The definition of a second (unit of time) is > >> "The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation > >> corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of > >> the ground state of the cesium 133 atom". > > That, my dear Seto, has nothing to do (and is independent of) length. > PERIOD! What is your point? In a second got nothing to do with length then how come they use second of light speed to define length? > > > > >> So, Seto, as you can see, the definition of length uses the definition > >> of a second, but the definition of a second DOES NOT USE the definition > >> of length. > > > Then tell me how did they measure the speed of light before the new > > definition for length based on the speed of light is estabvlished. > > Decades ago the speed of light was measured as you say. NOW THAT IS NO > LONGER THE CASE. Light and light speed inherent in the phenomenon is the > NEW STANDARD. Sorry... my shift key stuck. The one-way speed of light was never measured. Ken seto > > The definition of a second (unit of time) is > >> "The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation > >> corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of > >> the ground state of the cesium 133 atom". > > > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |