is the essence of time > movement ?

[moth]

it is obvious motion requires time. you argue time requires motion. a lack of relative motion between two objects just means they are not moving relative to each other. not the end of time. just because you can't tell if time is passing without seeing any change, does not mean time has stopped.

[north]

it is obvious motion requires time.

 

if motion requires time

 

that would imply that simply inducing time to any circumstance would either speed up or slow down anything

 

so if I have a bicycle and a 500hp Mustang and asked them both to cover 1000ft and that by adding time and time alone to the bicycle should make up for the bicycle's lack of power to keep up with Mustangs acceleration ?

 

is this what your saying ?

[moth]

if motion requires time

 

that would imply that simply inducing time to any circumstance would either speed up or slow down anything

 

 

i don't understand what you are saying here. could you clarify?

[Klaynos]

you know it would be much more helpful for us all if your quotes were much more complete

 

so we can follow the jist of your discussion

 

Address the points made in the post. Just hitting the quote button which is the easiest thing to do is what has done here, it should be possible to follow enough to post your retort.

 

I'd also like to point out that swansont works on atomic clocks, this is his area of expertise, what he says is not just opinion or comments from someone who's read about it.

[moth]

 

so if I have a bicycle and a 500hp Mustang and asked them both to cover 1000ft and that by adding time and time alone to the bicycle should make up for the bicycle's lack of power to keep up with Mustangs acceleration ?

 

is this what your saying ?

 

if time was passing faster for the guy on the bicycle, he could beat anything but light(if time was going fast enough for him and slow for the other).

[north]

Address the points made in the post. Just hitting the quote button which is the easiest thing to do is what has done here, it should be possible to follow enough to post your retort.

 

I'd also like to point out that swansont works on atomic clocks, this is his area of expertise, what he says is not just opinion or comments from someone who's read about it.

 

so my science dictionary is wrong then ?

[Klaynos]

so my science dictionary is wrong then ?

 

Quite possibly. Most things before you reach actual research are at least a bit "wrong"...

 

But without having it quoted word for word I cannot comment specifically.

[north]

Originally Posted by north

 

so if I have a bicycle and a 500hp Mustang and asked them both to cover 1000ft and that by adding time and time alone to the bicycle should make up for the bicycle's lack of power to keep up with Mustangs acceleration ?

 

is this what your saying ?

 

if time was passing faster for the guy on the bicycle, he could beat anything but light(if time was going fast enough for him and slow for the other).

 

thats not what proposed

 

I proposed is that , if I simply add time to the bicycle , would the bicycle speed up ?

[moth]

thats not what proposed

 

I proposed is that , if I simply add time to the bicycle , would the bicycle speed up ?

 

you have to define what you mean by "add time to the bicycle" before the question makes sense.

if you mean the bicycle and the mustang both have n time units to cover 1000 feet and then you add time units to the bicycles n time units then obviously you can add enough time units to the bicycles time n that will allow it to "beat" the car.

Edited March 19, 2009 by moth
expanded

[north]

Originally Posted by north

thats not what proposed

 

I proposed is that , if I simply add time to the bicycle , would the bicycle speed up ?

 

 

you have to define what you mean by "add time to the bicycle" before the question makes sense.

 

well your saying that motion requires time

 

hence the conclusion is that , the inducing of time into any object will produce motion

 

and therefore the motion of any object is based on the amount of time introduced

[moth]

well your saying that motion requires time

 

hence the conclusion is that , the inducing of time into any object will produce motion

 

and therefore the motion of any object is based on the amount of time introduced

 

how do you arrive at this conclusion ? the passage of time does not create motion without some force being applied to the object.

Edited March 19, 2009 by moth
brain fart

[swansont]

Originally Posted by swansont

If you have to ask, then it's apparent that you don't understand much about how they work. Motion of the atoms adds relativistic effects, so the best clocks would have no motion of the atoms at all. This presents some problems in making the measurements, though, since confining them perturbs the measurement — you move them to a region where they are not perturbed. But to say that motion is the basis of the clock is incorrect.

 

 

what of the caesium atomic clocks

 

' atoms in the lower energy state are directed into a cavity "

 

What of them? As I said, moving the atoms happens because that's the easiest way of doing it, but it is not the basis of the measurement. If you could accomplish the free precession and interrogation all in the same place, you would. But that's not technologically feasible — if you did it that way, you'd get a crappy clock, but it would still be a clock. So you move the atoms to a more appropriate region. Motion isn't the reason the clock works, it's just incidental, and makes the clock work better.

 

Fountain clocks are better than beam clocks, because the atoms are allowed to have less motion.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

so my science dictionary is wrong then ?

 

Your science dictionary is most certainly not a comprehensive source of knowledge.

[rudolfhendrique]

Time is movement, the duration of a second is 300.000 lightkilometers.We travel trough time with 1sec/300.000km. Maybe this video

will help you to understand what the speed of time is.

[north]

[north] Originally Posted by north

well your saying that motion requires time

 

hence the conclusion is that , the inducing of time into any object will produce motion

 

and therefore the motion of any object is based on the amount of time introduced

 

 

how do you arrive at this conclusion ?

 

why wouldn't I

 

 

 

the passage of time does not create motion without some force being applied to the object.

 

exactly

 

and the force applied to the object , has nothing to do with time does it ?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Originally Posted by north

what of the caesium atomic clocks

 

' atoms in the lower energy state are directed into a cavity "

 

 

What of them? As I said, moving the atoms happens because that's the easiest way of doing it, but it is not the basis of the measurement. If you could accomplish the free precession and interrogation all in the same place, you would. But that's not technologically feasible — if you did it that way, you'd get a crappy clock, but it would still be a clock. So you move the atoms to a more appropriate region. Motion isn't the reason the clock works, it's just incidental, and makes the clock work better.

 

vibration , movement

 

Fountain clocks are better than beam clocks, because the atoms are allowed to have less motion.

 

right

 

so atomic clocks are based on " fountains " now ?

Edited March 22, 2009 by north
Consecutive posts merged.

[moth]

[north]

and the force applied to the object , has nothing to do with time does it ?

 

forces, like motion, require time to act (or show a displacement) that is not what you have been saying. you seem to be saying that time requires motion (and now force) to proceed.what you seem to lack is any evidence or any way to test your idea.

[north]

Originally Posted by north

[north]

and the force applied to the object , has nothing to do with time does it ?

 

forces, like motion, require time to act (or show a displacement) that is not what you have been saying.

 

exactly

 

 

you seem to be saying that time requires motion (and now force) to proceed.

 

exactly

 

 

 

what you seem to lack is any evidence or any way to test your idea.

 

why ?

 

post # 102

Edited March 22, 2009 by north

[moth]

if motion requires time

 

that would imply that simply inducing time to any circumstance would either speed up or slow down anything

 

so if I have a bicycle and a 500hp Mustang and asked them both to cover 1000ft and that by adding time and time alone to the bicycle should make up for the bicycle's lack of power to keep up with Mustangs acceleration ?

 

is this what your saying ?

 

so what does "add time to the bicycle" mean?

Edited March 22, 2009 by moth

[swansont]

What of them? As I said, moving the atoms happens because that's the easiest way of doing it, but it is not the basis of the measurement. If you could accomplish the free precession and interrogation all in the same place, you would. But that's not technologically feasible — if you did it that way, you'd get a crappy clock, but it would still be a clock. So you move the atoms to a more appropriate region. Motion isn't the reason the clock works, it's just incidental, and makes the clock work better.

 

vibration ' date=' movement

 

[/quote']

 

What of them? The vibration is incidental to the operation as a clock. The essence of the clock is quantum mechanical — a coherent superposition of states — and cannot be equated with classical notion of movement.

 

 

 

right

 

so atomic clocks are based on " fountains " now ?

 

Yes, the best operational ones are.

 

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/clockdev/RubidiumFountain.html

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Usno-fountain.jpg

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/clockdev/fountain_operation.pdf

http://tf.nist.gov/cesium/fountain.htm

[davidben]

North...

 

thoughts on your question...

 

"time" is the measure of the conscious mind of infinity???

 

what come's first when viewing anything by the mind???

 

perception???

 

without perception, there is no "time" able to be spoken of, thus making perception as the "root" of time, and all other things such as movement, energy, etc. etc. deemed as secondary, to allow focused attention on the "root" or inception of the essence of "time"???

 

as with all things, the reason one first seek an answer, tell the answer that will be found???

 

a paradox of the human brain???

 

if i wish to calculate my speed of a movement, then this be my motive, so a time definition will be used to facilitate this need, or want, or motive of inquiry of an answer???

 

it could easily be said that time is only the "marking" of the memory of the human brain, of all things within environment, as appearing to end and begin, to establish a "human existence", or simply "witnessing" all things thru measurement of time, to allow the brain to grasp better infinite time???

 

as of course, hot does not exist without cold, so the two must be kept as one unit, not seperated by the mind as two entities, just as time must be, to unravel greater understanding of it by the conscious mind???

 

it is indeed most difficult to peer into time, since all things within environment are based and measured on time, and the brain and body of self reside within "self as time" also, as trappped in a "time measurment system" of lineal, but indeed, if time is not first considered as infinite, then the inception point of study is biased, first accessing limited realms of possibility, having no greater basis for these limitations, than of no limitations at all???

 

so for time to not be first considered to be "equally" possible as infinite, be but a pre-disposition, a bias of logic at inception of study, this garnering all thought direction, therefore conclusions???

 

it seems this would indeed preclude unbiased sight, of the logic, into the understanding of the possible possibilties of limitless time or infinity???

 

indeed, time having thus far been factored as lineal in it's inception, would have garnered or as limited the essence of science theory, in the aspects of time, and seems to first calculate all things as circular, or as never ending, would be the only way to unravel the mysteries of the cosmos of infinite time, if indeed such did exist???

 

but why infinite time not exist???

 

if all things in the cosmos, have a polor opposite, to exist, then time as well, could easily be seen as having to follow the same principle's of the entire cosmos???

 

but what exist to human man, except what man first believe exist, so therefore then strike forth with effort to prove it's existence???

 

just thoughts...

[Sayonara]

Time is movement, the duration of a second is 300.000 lightkilometers.We travel trough time with 1sec/300.000km. Maybe this video

will help you to understand what the speed of time is.

You appear to be confused. All you have done is give a very rounded figure for the distance travelled by light in one second and called it a "duration". This is such a fundamental error that most schoolchildren from the age of 14 up would be able to correct it. You simply cannot conflate units of distance and units of time.

[etcetcetc00]

Time seems to me to be inversely related to speed. The faster a person moves, the slower time moves for them. I don't understand fundamentally how hypothetical light-speed travel causing a person to arrive at a point in time beyond where they would have been at rest doesn't constitute as time travel, though.