On Lorentz transforms.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Mitcher said:

To measure intervals of time you do need a working clock, IOW a moving clock, IOW you need movement, a constant, cyclic one. I do not think i'am saying anything esoteric here. If you input a badly defined time into your model you will get a badly defined time in the output, so to know if time is a fundamental element of reality or if it is illusory as an emerging structure from more fundamental strata is... fundamental i guess.

Having movement and needing movement are not the same thing. What does the movement do for the measurement? Why is it required?

[Mitcher]

18 hours ago, swansont said:

Having movement and needing movement are not the same thing. What does the movement do for the measurement? Why is it required?

The simplest and oldest clocks were the Moon, the Sun, an hourglass.. Their movements are used as benchmark and supposed to be proportional to time intervals, so you obviously need something to move to achieve a measurement of a time duration, In fact I do not understand why you question this as it seems so obvious. I also understand that you can merely consider time as a simple parameter t and that it's enough to do physics without having to worry about what it is on the physical plane but if one considers that every piece of matter is carried away as if in some sort of timely path with velocity c it helps to adequately illustrate Relativity. Light can be used as a clock.

[Endy0816]

2 hours ago, Mitcher said:

The simplest and oldest clocks were the Moon, the Sun, an hourglass.. Their movements are used as benchmark and supposed to be proportional to time intervals, so you obviously need something to move to achieve a measurement of a time duration, In fact I do not understand why you question this as it seems so obvious. I also understand that you can merely consider time as a simple parameter t and that it's enough to do physics without having to worry about what it is on the physical plane but if one considers that every piece of matter is carried away as if in some sort of timely path with velocity c it helps to adequately illustrate Relativity. Light can be used as a clock.

You're only need a reasonably reliable periodic event.

Clocks count how often this periodic event happens.

 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2022 by Endy0816

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Mitcher said:

The simplest and oldest clocks were the Moon, the Sun, an hourglass.. Their movements are used as benchmark and supposed to be proportional to time intervals, so you obviously need something to move to achieve a measurement of a time duration,

The best you can validly conclude is that some clocks use movement. Some automobiles use an internal combustion engine, but you can’t use that factoid as proof that all autos use them. 

 

4 hours ago, Mitcher said:

In fact I do not understand why you question this as it seems so obvious.

“Obvious” to you, perhaps, but that’s not a substitute for a scientific argument.

It’s not obvious to me why motion is required, and what has to move.

 

 

2 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

You're only need a reasonably reliable periodic event.

Clocks count how often this periodic event happens.

Right. Like using a quantum state of an atom, but the atom doesn’t have to be moving.

[Mitcher]

19 hours ago, swansont said:

Right. Like using a quantum state of an atom, but the atom doesn’t have to be moving.

That's what I meant. The atoms are not moving but electrons are changing to an excited energy state so there can be no change without a move(ment). My point is that ALL clocks must have something moving or changing or desintegrating in order to operate and fulfill their role of measuring time intervals, and I'am curious to see if you will be able to point out a clock truly not moving at all. For a reminder the starting point was that movements are, maybe, more fundamental elements than space and time which seem to be postulated and axiomatic rather than rigorously defined. They can be described but not independantly, all we know about them is that they are... relative so of course even the definition for continuum is altogether vague.

22 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

You're only need a reasonably reliable periodic event.

Clocks count how often this periodic event happens.

 

 

 

I agree. The Sun's culmination is a periodic event, the ticking of any clock is also a periodic event and those events are then compared. But how a periodic event can take place without some periodic motion or change or active process that determine this event ?

Edited October 4, 2022 by Mitcher

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Mitcher said:

That's what I meant. The atoms are not moving but electrons are changing to an excited energy state so there can be no change without a move(ment). My point is that ALL clocks must have something moving or changing or desintegrating in order to operate and fulfill their role of measuring time intervals, and I'am curious to see if you will be able to point out a clock truly not moving at all. For a reminder the starting point was that movements are, maybe, more fundamental elements than space and time which seem to be postulated and axiomatic rather than rigorously defined. They can be described but not independantly, all we know about them is that they are... relative so of course even the definition for continuum is altogether vague.

How is a movement an 'element' ?

 

Have you heard the old saw about the most accurate clock in the world ?

It is never right.

But a clock that is actually stopped is exactly right twice a day.

 

Go and stand in Newgrange for up to 364 days.

If you see darkness you know nothing has changed.

This clock can measure 364 days without 'movement'.   - I see youvoriginal premise no clock without movement has been watered down to no movement, change or decay.

[Mitcher]

On 10/4/2022 at 10:23 PM, studiot said:

How is a movement an 'element' ?

 

Have you heard the old saw about the most accurate clock in the world ?

It is never right.

But a clock that is actually stopped is exactly right twice a day.

 

Go and stand in Newgrange for up to 364 days.

If you see darkness you know nothing has changed.

This clock can measure 364 days without 'movement'.   - I see youvoriginal premise no clock without movement has been watered down to no movement, change or decay.

To be able to describe our physical world one need a vocabulary, that is a few selected letters we will use to build more complicated sentences. Today they constitute the international system of base units, its elements are time, distance, mass, current, etc... They have been arbitrarily selected, other elements could have been chosen, for instance momentum, velocity, entropy, curvature... From your exemples of a stopped clock being right twice a day or the Newgrange one you don't seem to realize that the clocks would in fact be the rotation movement of the Earth for the first one and the revolution of the Earth around the Sun for the second one. In fact you absolutely do not seem to pay attention to what I'am saying, I do not know why nor where you are heading with your persistent questions about details.