Maxila

I think it's important to note the only thing experimentally verified is time dilation; the film shows travel backwards in time too. It is proven that a clock (time) can run slower relative to another observer due to gravity and relative motion. There are aspects of GR's mathematics that are not testable (currently and for the foreseeable future) that some some physicists think are out of its domain (like the singularity). In the movie, the physics shown inside the event horizon of the black hole are almost certainly wrong and stretch any applicable mathematics beyond reasonable probability.

I'd like to know more about the how's and why's of that, can you point me towards more more information. I can do a Google search but you may know of resources that don't come up.

You've still defined the measurement of something changing position (in motion) as the OP claimed.

I agree, I acknowledged that in my edit and noted I did make errors with all those digits that I had to correct before I posted that.

Making c = 1 is how I'd usually do it (essentially what you just showed); however for some people seeing c in numbers they are familiar with (i.e. 299792458 m/s) is helpful; that's why I showed it that way...... And you are right I did make errors using all those digits that I had to correct, lol

Yes, your's is more accurate I just rounded it. It would be exactly 259627884.4956445404

Edit: *Correction to sentence below, In re-reading I saw you were correcting his .76c, sorry. I'll leave the workout in case it's helpful to him. *You made an error < (*my reading error) somewhere if γ = 2 than speed is excatly 86.60254038c or ≈ 259627885 m/s γ = (1 – v2 / c2 ) -1/2 γ = (1 – 67406638669573225 / 89875517873681764) -1/2 γ = (1 – .75) -1/2 γ = .25 -1/2 γ = 1 / √ .25 γ = 1 / .5 γ = 2

It was the "wrong way" part that I didn't understand, but that made it clear the "wrong way" was time dilation. You've been professional and civil; however for many the comments are deteriorating to mere innuendo and insult, the probability to discuss and debate with even a smidgen of scientific reasoning is so low, this post is a good time for me to make an exit from this thread. I'll just point to the clue that addresses the original statement "When we change the amount of motion in a system, the time change goes the wrong way for motion to be a requirement for time" ,and leave out my reasoning because that will be interpreted to what most reader's wants to see rather than for what is said. When there is relative velocity of frame A to B of course they are both at rest in regards to time in their local frame, the relative velocity is added energy from one frame in respect to the other, the same way there is added energy to a mass in a gravitational field and that mass is time dilated to a frame outside that field. The escape velocity of a particular field, when that is a relative velocity to another frame, has the same relative time dilation as the gravitational field (the relative velocity absent a gravitational field).

Can you explain this in more detail, I'm not sure what you are referring too. The physical observation of time and motion shows them to be coincident and reciprocal (i.e. where t is time, x is a distance, and s is speed, it is equally valid to say t=x/s or s=x/t). They represent an inseparable realtionship to a change in distance (space). We cannot give preference too, or isolate one from the other (t or s), yet the physical observation only consist of distance and some form of energy changing position within that distance, making that time or speed a description, or measurement of that phenomenon; analogous to mass being the description or measurement of an energy quantity. That empirical observation makes it clear such a measurement (time or speed) cannot be made unless there is a change of position of energy by which to make it, and it is likely not an entity in its own right. The evidence and, the cause and effect are very clear in that context You really need to make an effort to understand what you've read before posting and you might see how irrelevant that comment was to the content of the post it referenced.

The issue I have with this reasoning is that empirically time is observed as a measurement of physical things (the change of position of energy in some form), the same way mass is the measurement of a quantity of energy. I don’t think you’d use that reasoning for mass by saying “we can’t remove energy from a measurement of mass doesn’t mean energy is necessary for a mass to exist.” I believe we should objectively follow where the empirical evidence takes us and not so readily dimes is because of our preconceived notions. I have explored how the empirical nature of time might explains SR dynamics more completely, simply, and is compatible with their maths. That same interpretation doesn't appear compatible with the curvature of space in GR, but interestingly implies gravitational lensing effect with that curvature. Such a discussion is not appropriate for this forum but I wanted let you know a possible explanation does exist. Sorry for not saying more but again I don't think it is an appropriate discussion for this venue.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I cannot so easily abandon empirical evidence that has to be dismissed in lieu of an nondescript, enigmatic mathematical construct. That's not to say I won't accept that may be the way it's true nature is, good science demands we keep an open mind to all possibilities; however when one, looks closely and objectively there are many more indicators and clues that warrant examination. This forum is not a place to discuss them and we should continue accepting our current best models (like we did for Newtonian dynamics) until, and unless we can develop better ones. However to be absolute in the belief they are perfect and without error is not science and tantamount to faith, it is a mistake made many times throughout science history, and due to human nature it is likely to be repeated.

I took this "until the electron multiplier output current is maximized" to mean the detecting of the photons emitted since I've read that technique (electron multiplication) can be used to detect photons. If you say that is not correct I don't have enough information to dispute it, it was my assessment of that statement. If you know of more updated information that's accessible I'd appreciate knowing about it. To be accurate the context was "empirically" and in that context I stand by that statement, I believe it is axiomatic,

Trout, Re-read what was posted and linked; the transition is used as an event to precisely tune the frequency of the microwave emitter. In other words when they observe that fluorescence from a maximum number of atoms they know they have precisely tuned the emitter to a frequency of 9 192 631 770 Hz, that frequency is then divided down to keep a crystal oscillator locked to a specific frequency. Physicialy, time is derived from the frequency of the microwave emitter and kept by the crystal oscillator. Which is the point I made, that "all clocks use motion to measure time". See: http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html “The frequency of the microwaves is adjusted until the electron multiplier output current is maximized, constituting the measurement of the atoms' resonance frequency. This frequency is electronically divided down and used in a feedback control circuit ("servo-loop") to keep a quartz crystal oscillator locked to a frequency of 5 megahertz (MHz), which is the actual output of the clock, along with a one-pulse-per-second signal.” Did I ever thank you for recommending the “The Feynman Lectures on Physics”?

Motion is incidental to the description of “rice pudding”; the ingredients are fundamental. The act of making rice pudding is different where motion (time) becomes fundamental and as necessary as ingredients. Most references and scientist will agree that time describes change; empirically change requires a change of position, a photon, a molecule, an orbit, etc. That makes motion fundamental to the empirical observation and not incidental (as describing rice pudding is). The thing being described is not a state of change; the act of describing is the state of change and requires time (motion) as a measure of the change; it is not the measure of the description itself.

First I’d like to state I regret some of the language I’ve used and I apologize if it appeared inflammatory. My interest is in having a civil discussion to debate the reasoning and logic of our statements, and avoid hyperbole. Because I don’t see much by way of reasoning, and therefore can’t follow the logic behind many of the assertions you made in that post. Yes that is correct, but you have forgotten in order to completely validate those physical laws and principles requires direct experiment and observations first, it is after they have been validated can we assert those same conditions must exist outside our observations too. I don’t see any contradiction, please specifically explain the contradiction you are implying? That conclusion is incorrect since Maxwell’s equations are partial differential equations they require more variables than a single particle, in such a case they could not apply. The basic tenant of relativity is that time and space are relative, without any other variables than a single particle; time could not exist as per relativity also. As an example, for the big bang theory at the point when it was deemed to be infinitely dense and infinitely small, time and space do not exist and only come into existence when that point expands and has the four dimensional qualities of 3 vectors and time. They only way to verify this is by direct observation or experiment; however once you account for duration by such means, motion must be present. With no way to test or verify such a claim it is only an unverifiable speculation. If you can devise an empirical means to verify that claim please explain it. Again I see no way you can verify this empirically without motion? Please explain if you do.

Your points are incoherent and cite proof without scientific or logical reasoning to explain them? Provide an empirical (observable) example of a duration where motion (of any kind) is non existent The rock example is not such an example if there is no way to account the duration (the duration must be observable)? Your arguments sound more like faith based resoning than logical or scientific reasoning. A simple thought experiment, everything in the universe down to photons cease to move for a duration only you experience positioned undetectable by any other being, after that duration that only you've experienced, when every particle in the universe had stopped moving, particles (that compose everything we can observe) continue to move as if they never stopped. 1. Would any intelligent being besides you infer any time had passed? If you believe yes, what evidence would they point to infer time had passed? That was never the point I was making which was, even cesium clocks use motion to measure and account for time. That is why I quoted the earlier post to reiterate I was not talking about QM, rather what can be observed empirically.

This discussion has taken place in two threads with the same people, I expect the participants to have followed what has come before. What appears to have been forgotten is I specifically stated time could not be easily defined in QM or GR as it could empirically. As for the cesium clock and the empirical motion that can be directly attributed to its time measurements: From a USNO document: The frequency of the microwaves is adjusted until the electron multiplier output current is maximized, constituting the measurement of the atoms' resonance frequency. This frequency is electronically divided down and used in a feedback control circuit ("servo-loop") to keep a quartz crystal oscillator locked to a frequency of 5 megahertz (MHz), which is the actual output of the clock, along with a one-pulse-per-second signal. The entire apparatus is shielded from external magnetic fields. http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html Document found on Notre Dame U website: "A detector at the end of the tube gives an output according to the number of cesium atoms striking it and peaks when the frequency is absolutely correct. This peak is then used to make slight corrections to the crystal oscillator that controls the clocking mechanism, locking in the frequency. This locked frequency is then divided by 9,192,631,770 which results in the familiar one pulse per second." http://www3.nd.edu/~techrev/Archive/Winter2002/a4.html Studiot: I didn't realize you we soliciting a response when you said "Yeah, maybe, but if I was a rock face I would still endure.". Which begs the question, the rock would endure relative to what? Even when contemplating a duration where nothing has changed (the rock face) it must be relative to something that has changed and empirically change is observed as a consequence of a change in position (motion). It's analogous to single distance having no meaning if there is no other distance to contemplate it in regards too, i.e. you need a quantity that is > or < than the distance referenced to differentiate one from the other.

"while authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority Provide a credible reference, I will no longer respond to unsubstantiated speculations.

More opinion with without any credible scientific reference. Please provide credible references that conflict with the ones I've already provided, or stop speculating on what you "think" you know, because empirically it is wrong.

Alright, I take back my unnecessary and inflammatory comment, I should not have even said that (for the record I have edited it out of the post). I stand by the fact cesium clocks use motion to measure time as per the reference links I quoted and provided in other posts.

http://etc.unitbv.ro...Measurement.pdf (Section) 18.3 "As observed, the uncertainty of all clocks depends upon the irregularity of some type of periodic motion. By quantifying this motion, one can define the second" If you have any actual scientific arguments to justify your innuendo, I'd be happy to discuss them.

An increment of a change of position, i.e. A pendulum swing, a quartz crystal oscillation, an Earth rotation, the wavelength of a photon change of position (cesium clocks), etc, etc.

http://etc.unitbv.ro/~olteanu/Tehnici%20de%20masurare%20in%20tc/18.%20Time%20Measurement.pdf (Section) 18.3 "As observed, the uncertainty of all clocks depends upon the irregularity of some type of periodic motion. By quantifying this motion, one can define the second" If you are going to continue to argue this please provide credible references supporting your argument.

You posted this in the other forum and your understanding of the process is not accurate, read the paper by the NIST (The official time keepers of the US) I linked in the other forum. Yes a hyperfine transition is used but it is the the frequency of the photons emitted that are used to measure time (a photon changes position per wavelength) is an increment of motion.

The hyperfine transition is used to tune a frequency to the exact frequency of the photon emitted by the electron when it goes back to its lower energy state. It is the frequency (wavelength over speed) that is used to measure time. The first paper linked by Michael Lombardi is a NIST document, in it he reaffirms all clocks use motion to measure time.