Eric 5

I have not called time a physical thing, you say that clocks measure this thing called time. My question to you has been, what is this thing that clocks are measuring? In order for a physical object like a clock to measure some outside influence that you want to call time, this time thing would have to be a physical thing. Use your reference books, ask your co-workers at your place of employment as a physicist. Tell me what any clock measures, what do clocks actually measure, what motivates them to get a number? All definitions and references on time will tell you that time is a measurement of motion, not a thing that is measured. The links that you provided me to explain how atomic clocks work all said that the clocks measure motion, not time. The measurement of this motion is what gives the idea of time. It is not a measurement of a physical thing, entity, or particle called time. So what is the thing you claim clocks are measuring? Oscillation by definition is a motion. If someone uses the term oscillation then they are going to use how that term is defined. The links that swansont provided on atomic clocks all say that the clocks measure motion of an object. Swansont and you can explain all you want about how an oscillation is not a motion, but that would be contrary to the standard physics definition of oscillation. Explain all you want, I know what the definition of an oscillation is, do you? Your statement that atoms are not motion and electrons are not orbiting /in motion is completely wrong and contrary to established scientific knowledge. I am going to have to ask you to back up this claim you have made with some proof. Klaynos, this link will explain your concern about how accelerating charges radiate and atoms do not radiate so electrons are not in motion. It shows that electrons do orbit and answers your concern about radiation. Anybody reading this post who wants to see how Klaynos was a bit mistaken about his claim that atoms are not in motion and electrons are not orbiting should watch this video.

The term time is used in physics, I am looking for how you define time when you say that it is physical. Time is defined in physics, check your reference books. This should be easy for you since your profile says that you are a physicist, and your blog says that you build atomic clocks. What I am asking has nothing to do with the metaphysical, it is a pure scientific question. Originally Posted by Eric 5 Go and look up the definition of atom and tell everyone reading this that atoms are not in motion. Show the definition of atom. Atoms are not motionless. They move (vibrate). You are incorrect. As a physicist you should be familiar with the structure of the atom, very little mass and a lot of motion. Atoms are not motionless or stationary. You should know this. Here is what you posted in #85 of this thread: Look, your blog states that you build atomic clocks, yet you say that atomic clocks do not depend on motion. You are wrong and i have no idea why you would make such a statement. And what do you mean one can argue whether the electrons are in motion or not. It is standard scientific knowledge that electrons are in motion. Look in your reference books. There is no arguing the point. Here are the links you posted to help explain atomic clocks to me. I say that atomic clocks measure motion and convert that motion to a number that is to signify a man made unit of time. You say that atomic clocks do not depend on motion. Lets see what your links say. Quote from the above link. "The experimental clock, which measures the oscillations of a mercury ion (an electrically charged atom) held in an ultra-cold electromagnetic trap, produces “ticks” at optical frequencies. Optical frequencies are much higher than the microwave frequencies measured in cesium atoms in NIST-F1, the national standard and one of the world’s most accurate clocks. Higher frequencies allow time to be divided into smaller units, which increases precision." It states right here that the clock measures oscillations. That is motion. FREQUENCY--- in physics, number of periodic oscillations, vibrations, or waves occuring per unit of time. That all describes motion. Link number two with your comment. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/22097 swansont "The ideal frequency reference would be a single, motionless atom, unperturbed by any interactions with other atoms or the environment" This does not even make any logical sense. A frequency of a motionless atom? Per the definition of frequency this would not be possible, and per the definition of atom there can not be a motionless atom. Here is a quote from your second link: "Optical clocks Invented 50 years ago this month, atomic clocks have revolutionized how we measure time. But optical clocks, which use light rather than microwaves, promise to be even more accurate and could lead to the second being redefined" Both types of clocks depend on motion, a frequency. Again, I am right when I say atomic clocks depend on motion and time is the measurement or perception of motion. Here is your third link and your comments. http://whyfiles.org/078time/index.php?g=2.txt "The cold, slow-moving, atoms are measured in the microwave chamber on the way up and back down, using the same general technique we've already seen. The improved precision results from the reduced Doppler effect and an increase in measurement time. i.e. there is an improvement in making the atoms move slower. Motion is not the basis of the measurement." This is wrong. Motion is the basis of time measurement. Quote from third link. "Like most clocks, atomic clocks create and then count periodic movements, or oscillations. In the old pendulum clocks, a weight swung back and forth at a steady frequency, so the clockmaker only had to invent a mechanism to count the swings and drive the clock's hands. It wasn't too accurate, but it beat watching water leak from a tank. In an atomic clock, the oscillations occur in an electromagnetic field that causes transitions between the two possible quantum-mechanical conditions of an atom. In the commonly used cesium 133 atoms, these occur about 9.19 billion times per second." "Atoms can have one of two "hyperfine states," and this is the basis of the atomic clock. The magnetic field of the outermost electron must either point in the same direction as the magnetic field of the nucleus, or in the opposite direction. The laws of quantum physics forbid other orientations. Generally, an atom remains in its hyperfine state. But when prodded by electromagnetic radiation at a specific frequency, it will go through the "hyperfine transition" and switch into the other state. The idea of building a clock around hyperfine states was proposed by physicist Isador Rabi in 1945. Essentially, an electronic clock selects cesium atoms in one hyperfine state and exposes them to radiation that causes them to switch to the other state. The exact frequency of radiation -- 9,192,631,770 hertz -- needed to cause the transition becomes the regular beat that the clock counts to register time. Only when the atoms "hear" that exact beat will they change hyperfine states. And after you create that beat you just count it. After every 9,192,631,770 beats, another second has passed." This is what I have been saying about clocks and time. Swansont, you have been very helpfull in proving my point, thank you. As I have said before, Every measurement of time is based on what man decided that measurement to mean. Seconds, minutes, hours and so on are all man made. Time did not come pre-packaged in these units, man agreed on what to call these durations. Clocks measure how much of a pre-determined man made unit passed for a given motion. If something takes a minute of time, then that activity lasted for what man determined to be a minute. Time is the concept of man. So tell me, where are you getting the idea that time is a physical thing and atomic clocks do not depend on motion? As a person who claims to be a builder of atomic clocks where do you get the idea that the atom is not in motion and atomic clocks do not depend on motion? Your links state otherwise.

Originally Posted by Eric 5 "If you define the term time in your reference book and research time dilation you will see that time does not actually slow down, it appears to slow down." Here is the difference: APPEAR To become visible: a plane appearing in the sky. To come into existence: New strains of viruses appear periodically. To seem or look to be: appeared unhappy. See Synonyms at seem. To seem likely: They will be late, as it appears. To come before the public: has appeared in two plays; appears on the nightly news. ACTUALLY In fact; in reality: That tree is actually a fir, not a pine. Used to express wonder, surprise, or incredulity: I actually won the lottery! As an actual or existing fact; really. In time dilation the moving clock appears (is seen) to be out of synch with the stationary clock. The clock does not actually (in reality) slow down. This whole time dilation idea is based on the fact that it takes light longer to reach the stationary observer from the moving clock (which is further away) than the light from the clock that is nearer to the stationary observer. This is what causes the moving clock to look or appear to be slower. Time dilation according to the Special Theory of Relativity is a term that refers to the loss of time of a moving clock as observed by a stationary observer, time appears to move slower on a moving object from the viewpoint of a stationary observer. Many people today think that this thing called time actually slows down. Well, these people have a misunderstanding of the Special Theory of Relativity, it states that time APPEARS to move slower to a stationary observer. If you want to say that time dilation is a real actual occurrence then you would have to show evidence or proof that time is a physical thing. The physical things in this world are either composed of particles or waves. Time would have to be defined as one of these. Next you would have to show that a clock measures this physical thing called time.

Time does have an exact definition. Look in any dictionary. Looks like you are trying to fit YOUR definition of time with standard definitions of time. The standard definitions of time in the dictionary are the definitions of time.

Use your dictionary and define the terms APPEARING and ACTUALLY. You still want to avoid the issue. You know what you saw in the demo. What you are doing right now is squirming trying to wiggle out of facing the facts. Go ahead and use the whole internet to prove the facts wrong. Here is some help: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_time_dilation.htm Have fun! Start attacking! TO insane_alien. Here is another web site to go to: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_time_dilation.htm You can also Google lenght contraction, special relativity, general relativity.

Neither ruler gets smaller, it only appears that way. Nothing gets smaller. Length contraction is not a physical occurrence. You will have to face the facts sooner or later. Just stop avoiding the facts. Anyone who sees the demo will see that you are distorting the facts by stating that the rulers get shorter. You said that the rulers do get smaller. You are wrong. Nothing physically gets shorter, try as you will, you can not wiggle out of the facts. Nothing gets shorter and you know it. The more you try to deny this fact the better my case against your beliefs. You are wrong. Come on, you can do better than this. Show some evidence that refutes the facts. You seem to think that objects actually physically contract. Put your money where your mouth is and give some evidence. You are wrong and the more you deny the facts only reveals your inability to face the facts. This is it, use all that you have to disprove the facts or just accept that you have no way out of this. Your reputation is on the line. You are just digging yourself a bigger hole. Get all of your friends involved in this, the facts are there and you can not accept it. Do something other than distort the facts. GO! Maybe you need some help. Go to youtube, I saw some demos on length contraction that take your side in your belief. Go ahead and look, then maybe you can feel better. Do something! I too can not load the page right now, so go to youtube and type in length contraction, special relativity, general relativity. The original demo is not there, but you can still see some demos.

Thank You for continuing to avoid the fact that the demo clearly shows that the rulers do not change length. This only tells me that you are not able to confront the facts. You are now trying to turn this discussion toward what swansont posted, not what the demo clearly shows. I have stated that swansont misrepresented the demo. The picture of the demo is not the whole demo. Stick to the demo. You are the one who is ignoring the evidence, anyone who views the demo can see that. I have proven my point beyond a reasonable doubt. All you can now do is concern yourself with how to twist the facts. There is no wiggle room on this, stop squirming and face the facts. You have not brought to bear any reasonable evidence that counters the facts in the demo. It looks to me that you and those who agree with you have three choices regarding the current situation. You can continue to deny the facts. You can accept the facts. You can hope that this thread gets closed so you can avoid this predicament that you are in.

You are avoiding the obvious facts and trying to change the subject. You saw the demo and are having a hard time accepting what you saw. The rulers do not get smaller. No matter how much you protest, the facts will remain the same.

Watch the demonstrations. Anyone who sees the demonstrations can see that neither ruler gets smaller, you know that neither ruler is shown to get smaller, yet you are going to argue the point. I have shown you a visual demonstration showing that length does not get smaller and still you do not accept it. You have made up your mind on how you will think about this topic and are not going to look at anything that contradicts your idea of length contraction. Very unscientific.

That is a misrepresentation, anyone can see that. You saw the animation. You know that neither ruler gets shorter. If you honestly see the rulers changing lenght than you are not seeing what is being shown, but seeing what you want to see.

SWANSONT HAS MISREPRESENTED THE DEMO FROM THE WEB SITE! What Swansont posted in #27 of this thread is misleading and false. Why do you suppose this person would distort the facts? What is this person trying to hide? Swansont saw the demo and it went against his beliefs, the facts do not back up what he wants to believe. If you go to this web site : http://www.cs.sbcc.cc.ca.us/~physics/flash/relativity/LengthContraction.html You will see for yourself that Swansont is wrong and distorted the facts to mislead you. When all else fails the last thing someone can do to “prove” their point is to falsify data. Swansont, the fact that you did this just strengthens my argument and discredits what you have to say about this topic. So Swansont, this is how you conduct yourself and research. You can know a person by their actions.

Neither ruler becomes smaller. There is no change in length. Mathematically tested is not reality tested. Anyone that goes to the web site can see that neither ruler changes length. Cap’n Refsmmat is wrong. Go look and see what the truth is. The animation is a simple, understandable demo of length contraction based on the math. Cap’n Refsmmat is wrong. The rulers do not change in length. Look at the math, look at the demo, see that neither ruler changes length. When you say that length contraction is real you would have to explain how these materials “pop” back to their original shape when they slow down. GO LOOK at post # 14 on this thread and ask yourself those questions. You seem to want to believe something despite the evidence against your belief. “What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.” Bertrand Russell You can see that the rulers do not change length, so you will have to dispute the math and not me.

I do not have this book. Quote from the book the section that states time is a real thing. If I do not have the book at hand you will have to state what the book says that proves your point.

What is the reference that states time is a real physical thing? Time dilation according to the Special Theory of Relativity is a term that refers to the loss of time of a moving clock as observed by a stationary observer, time appears to move slower on a moving object from the viewpoint of a stationary observer. Many people today think that this thing called time actually slows down. Well, these people have a misunderstanding of the Special Theory of Relativity, it states that time APPEARS to move slower to a stationary observer. Go to this web site. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_time_dilation.htm If you define the term time in your reference book and research time dilation you will see that time does not actually slow down, it appears to slow down. What is this?

Go ahead and look up a reference on atomic clocks and show me I am mistaken. Stop with the chatter and put your evidence on the table. I take that bet. Show your cards. Go and look up the definition of atom and tell everyone reading this that atoms are not in motion. Show the definition of atom. Atoms are not motionless. They move (vibrate). You are incorrect. No. There is no argument. They vibrate. Wrong. Research atomic clocks. Wrong. Atoms vibrate. Atoms and ions are interchangeable. Look it up. There is your motion, oscillation. Look up the definition of electron, get a good understanding of this topic. Atoms move. Spin is motion. Looking for the physics definition of time. Your question is off topic. Yes it can. those things are thoughts, emotions, ideas, considerations. Which brings this whole topic back to the fact that time is a consideration and not a real physical thing. Thank You.

So go to whatever your source or guardian of human knowledge is and tell me what it says about time. You have to understand that when someone writes a book they have to use the commonly defined words that can be found in a standard dictionary. If they have some other definition of a term then they need to put that definition in the glossary or foot notes. If you have seen some other definition of time then is stated in any standard dictionary then let me know of this reference. Otherwise, the standard definition of time stands. Go and show me your evidence that time is a real tangible thing.

The physical lenght of the rulers does not change. Anybody reading this post go to the web site and see for yourself. The actual lenght of the rulers does not change. Notice how swansont still thinks that there is a change in lenght. Look at the rulers, they do not get smaller. The answers are different, but the rulers never change, can not you see that. There is no change in length. Look at the demonstration. What changes? Viewpoint and perception, not length or time. My claim is that time is not a physical tangible thing, this demonstration does not dispute that fact. swansont. Do you really see one of the rulers physically getting smaller? Go ahead and state for the record that you see one of the rulers physically getting smaller. If you have the delusion that one of the rulers is getting smaller then I will have to take into account that you see things that are not actually occuring. This can corrupt all that you have stated or will state regarding what you say. Seriously, do you actually see a ruler getting smaller? "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." Voltaire (1694 - 1778) Swansont! Lay it all on the the line. Do you see one ruler actually getting smaller in the demonstration? Yes. No.

Attacks! Calm down. I have not attacked anyone. You go look up the word atomic clock and atom. Tell me if swansont is right. An atom by definition is composed of motion. Atoms are not still or motionless. You say that dictionary definitions are hardly applicable in ALL contexts. That is incorrect. Looks like you need to get a better understanding of what a dictionary is, and its uses. Now other than that, do you have anything constructive to add to this conversation? So you agree with swansont and his statement regarding the operation of an atomic clock. Look up atom and atomic clock. Now back to the topic at hand, is time a real physical thing. Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. There is a distance, there is a velocity of the objects travel, and that movement of that object or particle in relationship to its starting point and in relationship to its ending point is what gives us the idea of time. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time. Do you agree or disagree?

Please go to this web site and all this will become better understood. http://www.cs.sbcc.cc.ca.us/~physics/flash/relativity/LengthContraction.html Notice that the ruler does not get smaller. It only appears smaller by the way that it is measured. Nothing actually contracts. If you want more visual explainations of time dilation, rod contraction, and Special Relativity, go to youtube and type in those terms. You will find good explainations that are done by people involved in the field of physics. Have a good learning experience.

Were you trying to make a point in regards to the idea that time is a physical thing, or what swansont said about atomic clocks?

Have you looked up the word time yet? The term oscillation is defined as a movement, look up the definition. Also, look up atomic clock, you seem to have a misunderstanding on how an atomic clock works.

Swansont. Any standard scientific definition of time does not say that it is a physical thing. Time is defined as a measurement of motion. Time is a consideration. You have not shown any evidence to the contrary. This is what I have been saying. Time is not a physical thing. It is a measurement of the motion of physical things. Time is not something that exists on its own. Since time is not a real physical thing and a clock is, then the only thing that can experience any kind of physical phenomenon would be the clock. When two clocks that were previously synchronized are later shown to be out of synch, it is the clocks that have changed and not time.

I am asking for anyone on this forum to give the definition of time that is used in science. If you think that time is a physical thing, then what scientific definition of time are you using? You say time is largely defined by IT'S measurement in physics. What is this thing that possesses this measurement? What is being measured? Is time a thing that exists on it's own? Or is it just a type of measurement? Look, there have been claims that time dilation actually occurs, so what actually occurred to this thing called time. If you say that a clock slowed down, then can you find the description of a clock that shows the physics of how this time thing is measured by the clock? Just look up the scientific definition of time, and then define the word clock. After doing this see if you can explain to yourself how this idea of time dilation can actually occur. See if you can explain the exact mechanics behind time dilation actually occurring.

Is this the standard physics definition of time? This is the best you could dig up to prove your point, to give solid evidence of the existence of time. You are going to have to use a better dictionary, that is why i said to use a standard dictionary. From that definition time is something that is measured. That’s it! So what exactly is being measured? Without the clock, what is this thing called time? What you just gave as a definition of time does not say what this time thing is, it only states what it is measured by. This definition of time is incomplete. Your definition of time is like giving a definition of light in this manner. "light is what is measured by a spectrometer" Would you call that a complete definition of light? It says nothing other than the fact that it is measured. How about this definition: "sound is something that is measured by a decimeter." Very incomplete. There is much more to the definition of light and sound than is stated in those simplistic definitions. Come on, give a good solid scientific definition of time, all the details. But, if you are happy with this definition of time, then from this definition of time, can you explain the physics behind this "something that is measured by a clock" when time dilation occurs? This definition leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe it would be a good idea for you to look up the word clock too.

Look up the word time. Dictionaries and reference books are stating that time is not a real physical thing. I say time is just a consideration, a measurement of motion. Time is not a thing. Check your physics books. I say time is not a real thing and give evidence why. I have even asked you to check for yourself, but you have not done so yet. My evidence is all there in black and white, in any reference book. The evidence is in all of your science reference books. It is now up to you to tell me what definition of time you are working from when you say time is a real thing that is measured and can be slowed down. You give your evidence that time is a real physical thing. Also, do yourself a favor and define spatial dimension, decide for yourself if this is an actual physical object or thing. If time is similar to the three spatial dimensions, then find out exactly what you are comparing time to and you will see that as I have been saying all along, TIME IS A CONSIDERATION. But please define time and spatial dimension and decide for yourself. You need to define your terms to get a better understanding of this subject of time. Again, up to now you have avoided giving any definition of time, so until you do, the definition of time in “time dilation” will be the definition that can be found in any standard dictionary. Just give your evidence of what the meaning for the word time is, you will gain a better understanding of time. Show me that you have a correct definition of time and no longer prolong this debate. I stand by my evidence that time is just a consideration. Correct me if I am wrong.