Science ignores its own science and stereotypes!.

[Relative]

We define a year in terms of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. (Forget details for now). It is true that if an alien defines his year in terms of the orbit of his planet around its sun, then our Earth year is unlikely to be the same duration as the Alien year. So what?

 

We have picked different base units to use, no big issue.

 

 

 

Right, you cannot invent time...what we can do is use some periodic motion to define a unit of time. There is no fundamental reason why we should use the Earth's orbit or its spinning on its axes to define a unit of time, but it seems very useful to us on Earth.

 

Today the standard SI unit is s second and is defined as

 

"the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom".

 

 

 

This sounds a little bit like conformal or cosmic time. Mod details here you could consider the time as measured by an observer co-moving with the expansion of the Universe. Cosmologists use this in their models. However, this does not by itself give us a unit of time. You still need to define some units for your clock to use.

Today the standard SI unit is s second and is defined as

 

"the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom".

 

 

Which is has near to a second on a clock as science could get, you changed the colour of the clock thats all.

 

 

''We have picked different base units to use, no big issue.''

 

Really?, the issue would be that neither you or the alien were correct about time, their second would be a longer second than your second or shorter depending on distance to the sun.

What I see is time is distance according to how science originated time.

 

It does not work.

 

[ajb]

Really?, the issue would be that neither you or the alien were correct about time, their second would be a longer second than your second or shorter depending on distance to the sun.

Correct is not the right word here. We are just picking units to measure time.

 

Let us think about this...

 

A straight line from London to Brighton is 44 miles, as I measure it. You measure it to be 14.67 leagues, while swansont measures it to be 352 furlongs. Strange measures 2,788,000 inches! Who is right?

[Relative]

Correct is not the right word here. We are just picking units to measure time.

 

Let us think about this...

 

A straight line from London to Brighton is 44 miles, as I measure it. You measure it to be 14.67 leagues, while swansont measures it to be 352 furlongs. Strange measures 2,788,000 inches! Who is right?

I presume you have just give the same measurements for each in different terms.

 

My question how are you measuring this, by using time? a giant tape measure?

 

My alien may argue that it is only 22 miles depending where he lives. Because his mph would be different to yours, because his second is different.

 

The example you are explaining is only relative to us, this will not tell you the age of the universe.

 

 

And my alien is a giant, his feet are 44 miles in length, distance is relative to size.

Have you ever considered that it is not the universe that is big, but us that are really small?

[ajb]

I presume you have just give the same measurements for each in different terms.

Yes, using different units. So who is correct?

 

My question how are you measuring this, by using time? a giant tape measure?

The details of this do not matter. We could use a range surveyor's wheels with different calibrations.

 

My alien may argue that it is only 22 miles depending where he lives. Because his mph would be different to yours, because his second is different.

Then he is not using miles as I define it. He is using some other units, lets say alien miles.

 

Also, I will assume the Earth is significantly close to being flat over the distances we measure and we makes these measurements slow enough to ignore any relativistic effects and so. We are making a local measurement not to cloud the issue.

 

 

 

The example you are explaining is only relative to us, this will not tell you the age of the universe.

It is just an example of using different units.

 

And my alien is a giant, his feet are 44 miles in length, distance is relative to size.

Not really. Distance is relative in the sense that relativity means. That is different inertial observers generally won't agree on the length of something.

 

Let us assume your alien and I are in co-moving frames. Say we are stood right next to each other as we make the measurement. We will agree on this length, just we may use different units. We would have to take this into account when comparing results. That is it.

[Relative]

Yes, using different units. So who is correct?

 

 

The details of this do not matter. We could use a range surveyor's wheels with different calibrations.

 

 

Then he is not using miles as I define it. He is using some other units, lets say alien miles.

 

Also, I will assume the Earth is significantly close to being flat over the distances we measure and we makes these measurements slow enough to ignore any relativistic effects and so. We are making a local measurement not to cloud the issue.

 

 

 

 

It is just an example of using different units.

 

 

Not really. Distance is relative in the sense that relativity means. That is different inertial observers generally won't agree on the length of something.

 

Let us assume your alien and I are in co-moving frames. Say we are stood right next to each other as we make the measurement. We will agree on this length, just we may use different units. We would have to take this into account when comparing results. That is it.

Neither are correct, because it is made up, to fit humanity.

 

If you was travelling in co-moving frames with my giant, you would have to travel 44 miles before my giant had to move, he is there before you started your journey, velocity to the giant is different than velocity to you.

 

 

Distance perspective, all perspective is different to the giant,

 

 

An alien would argue that they are correct and you are incorrect, because of the way the second was derived.

 

 

So if there is an uncertainty principle, to me that means garbage and gibberish.

 

To age the universe and get a true account of time, you just simply need to rewind the big bang.....

providing there was a big bang, which again I am a bit jubious about.

[ajb]

Neither are correct, because it is made up, to fit humanity.

This is not a bad answer in fact. We pick base units for our convenience, but we have a massive choice. That is why SI units came in to being.

 

If you was travelling in co-moving frames with my giant, you would have to travel 44 miles before my giant had to move, he is there before you started your journey, velocity to the giant is different than velocity to you.

You are trying to distract from the point that units are arbitrary and that we don't have to use the same units.

 

Distance perspective, all perspective is different to the giant...

Perspective is a different thing. We are talking about making measurements not what we think is far or near.

 

An alien would argue that they are correct and you are incorrect, because of the way the second was derived.

No, even if he uses different base units for length and duration as long as he knows this, and how to convert between the units, then why would he think we are at error? (mod experimental accuracies etc.)

 

 

 

So if there is an uncertainty principle, to me that means garbage and gibberish.

This is a different issue.

 

To age the universe and get a true account of time, you just simply need to rewind the big bang.....

But what units of time would you consider the be "correct"?

[Relative]

 

This is not a bad answer in fact. We pick base units for our convenience, but we have a massive choice. That is why SI units came in to being.

 

 

You are trying to distract from the point that units are arbitrary and that we don't have to use the same units.

 

 

Perspective is a different thing. We are talking about making measurements not what we think is far or near.

 

 

No, even if he uses different base units for length and duration as long as he knows this, and how to convert between the units, then why would he think we are at error? (mod experimental accuracies etc.)

 

 

 

 

This is a different issue.

 

 

But what units of time would you consider the be "correct"?

Well it would not matter if you and the alien and giant all agreed on the unit values, but because you all based time on circular motion , none of you would still be correct.

 

 

What units of time would I consider to be correct?

 

That is the universal question, that I am looking for the answer too.

 

Time is decay, but then again decaying properties of different matter is different so again an inaccurate value.

 

To be honest I would have to debate about the nothing, and before the big bang, which is timeless negative space.

[Strange]

 

You are trying to distract from the point that units are arbitrary and that we don't have to use the same units.

 

Having been round (and round and round) this argument in the past, I am convinced that relative is not trying to distract from the point; he genuinely cannot understand it. And by that I mean incapable of understanding (not just that it hasn't been explained in the right way, or he hasn't "got it" yet), which is why this will go nowhere ...

[ajb]

Well it would not matter if you and the alien and giant all agreed on the unit values, but because you all based time on circular motion , none of you would still be correct.

We base the units of time (usually) on some kind of periodic motion. That is correct, we don't however define time in that way. We just tend to measure time using periodic motion and set our units to some "standard clock".

 

What units of time would I consider to be correct?

 

That is the universal question, that I am looking for the answer too.

I would claim that there us no special unit of time. There of course may be units that are adapted to the problem at hand.

 

Time is decay, but then again decaying properties of different matter is different so again an inaccurate value.

This sounds more like the thermodynamic arrow of time than a definition of time.

 

To be honest I would have to debate about the nothing, and before the big bang, which is timeless negative space.

Negative space? Negative what on that space?

 

(I have work to do now, so I may not get back to you until tomorrow)

[Relative]

Well it would not matter if you and the alien and giant all agreed on the unit values, but because you all based time on circular motion , none of you would still be correct.

 

 

What units of time would I consider to be correct?

 

That is the universal question, that I am looking for the answer too.

 

Time is decay, but then again decaying properties of different matter is different so again an inaccurate value.

 

To be honest I would have to debate about the nothing, and before the big bang, which is timeless negative space.

 

 

Having been round (and round and round) this argument in the past, I am convinced that relative is not trying to distract from the point; he genuinely cannot understand it. And by that I mean incapable of understanding (not just that it hasn't been explained in the right way, or he hasn't "got it" yet), which is why this will go nowhere ...

Or maybe you not understand me, have you ever considered that possibility?

Regardless , you can not measure time by the way it was done, using distance.

 

It all starts with the second that is equal to 0.288 mile, the aliens second may be equal to 1.2mile.

 

 

Because you both invented time by error of process.

 

We base the units of time (usually) on some kind of periodic motion. That is correct, we don't however define time in that way. We just tend to measure time using periodic motion and set our units to some "standard clock".

 

 

I would claim that there us no special unit of time. There of course may be units that are adapted to the problem at hand.

 

 

This sounds more like the thermodynamic arrow of time than a definition of time.

 

 

Negative space? Negative what on that space?

 

(I have work to do now, so I may not get back to you until tomorrow)

Negative energy, no energy, a nothing, blackness. 100% viable logic.

 

 

The stars make light, before stars there had to be blackness because there was nothing to make light.

 

 

Energy comes from the stars so that means neither was there energy.

[Strange]

Regardless , you can not measure time by the way it was done, using distance.

 

It all starts with the second that is equal to 0.288 mile, the aliens second may be equal to 1.2mile.

 

But what if we and the alien agree that we won't measure time using distance (which, as others have explained, is a silly way to do it). We might both agree to use the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom (just to pick a random example).

 

Then we would both agree on the length of the second. Then we could compare how long her day and year was compared to ours.

 

Energy comes from the stars so that means neither was there energy.

 

Not all of it. Where do you think the stars get their energy from?

Edited July 29, 2014 by Strange

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

OK - I am about to call time on this thread. Either the OP starts to firm up his hypothesis and respond with maths and evidence to questions OR the thread will be locked.

 

Even the last sentences of your immediately preceding post are easily shown to be false - reading on the CMBR would help.

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

 

Edited July 29, 2014 by imatfaal
clarity

[Relative]

 

This is the nothing how it all began,

 

 

and my logic gives only two options.

 

 

 

To create anything out of nothing there has to be isotropic centripetal pressure or else nothing will happen...........

 

 

That leaves only one logical explanation , containment, We are contained.

 

1. We live inside a black hole which the maths fits us exactly into.

 

 

2. We live in a plasm generator, that was created, and we are all nothing more than nuclear waste.

 

 

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

OK - I am about to call time on this thread. Either the OP starts to firm up his hypothesis and respond with maths and evidence to questions OR the thread will be locked.

 

Even the last sentences of the immediately preceding post are easily shown to be false - reading on the CMBR would help.

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

 

and this is the problem you lock it before you hear me out proper, maths can not explain what I am saying, it is critical thinking, lateral thinking, that is your science not mine, so you are now saying I am not allowed to use critical thinking in science, you want to lock your own science away, that is ironic, dont please, look what Im saying, understand it please.

 

But what if we and the alien agree that we won't measure time using distance (which, as others have explained, is a silly way to do it). We might both agree to use the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom (just to pick a random example).

 

Then we would both agree on the length of the second. Then we could compare how long her day and year was compared to ours.

 

 

Not all of it. Where do you think the stars get their energy from?

The stars get their energy from the stars , the proton-proton chain is the red dwarf vacuum cleaners, feeding each other,

 

 

everything else is space dust, that makes matter through fusion process.

A cooling star, could attract a surface layer of matter, that cools and becomes a physical body with a central core that will always stay warm, because it still gets fed its energy.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Relative

[swansont]

hypophetic-I put a stick in the ground, Im going to use this to measure one solar day using a hot spot on the sun, my clock runs faster at night. there is less dark hours than day hours, is that correct?

 

...

 

''A year, OTOH, can be measured by all, the way we've defined it.''

 

wrong sir - an aliens planet would be different to our own, a year would be longer or shorter, I live until iM 8 on mercury. You can not invent time, and use that has a standard, it is made up in reality, so science has made everything up concerning dating.

True time, I am sure is something to do with from a central point extended out, the distance been a apart of the big bang, so if you can calculate distance v velocity and account for force, you may have correct time.

No, your clock does not run faster at night. It does not run at all at night, technically speaking, but if it did, it would run at the same rate. There are not more daylight hours than night time hours.

 

We were talking about earth. Bringing up alien planets is a complete nonsequitur.

[Relative]

No, your clock does not run faster at night. It does not run at all at night, technically speaking, but if it did, it would run at the same rate. There are not more daylight hours than night time hours.

 

We were talking about earth. Bringing up alien planets is a complete nonsequitur.

Yes but I know you dont understand the 1 second lines , so had to mention aliens sorry.

 

Each line would represent the different distance over 1 second, so neither second would be correct.

 

 

How can that not matter? even when considering time on a sun dial, at night I am travelling quicker than in the day, this must mean something....

[Strange]

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Last chance Relative. Next post is sensible, factual, and relevant or the thread is locked. And do not respond to modnote within the thread - it is a pretty simple request

[studiot]

Relative, I expect this thread will end shortly but please take these thoughts with you to your next question.

 

They are meant in a kind and helpful way to improve your future experiences.

 

Even Strange is not 100% right 100% of the time.

 

But you seem to think you are never wrong.

 

When the discussion gets too difficult you change the subject.

That is why you think that no one can understand you.

Because they are thinking about the last thing you said, whereas you are thinking about the next thing you are going to say.

 

That is an incredible barrier to communication.

 

So two questions.

 

When was the last time you accepted you were wrong here at SF?

 

How many times have you changed the subject in this thread?

 

All the best in the future.

 

[swansont]

Yes but I know you dont understand the 1 second lines , so had to mention aliens sorry.

 

Each line would represent the different distance over 1 second, so neither second would be correct.

 

t.png

 

How can that not matter? even when considering time on a sun dial, at night I am travelling quicker than in the day, this must mean something....

As we've pointed out, your definition of a second is a crappy one if the second is not constant. Crappy as it is, it's still based on rotation, which means the orbital motion doesn't matter

 

You keep saying that science got it wrong. How come it works so well?

[Ophiolite]

Relative, can you tell me why, when you have had it explained to you multiple times, that the definition of a second is not based on distance do you continue to insist that it is?

 

I can think of several explanations for this behaviour, none of them flattering. I hope you can come up with one that does you credit and moves this discussion forward, instead of in an inwardly spiraling orbit to death an destruction.

[Relative]

And I rest my case on this thread with about all the evidence I need, science is stereotyping science, and thinking and ideas is not allowed any more, I have just give you some of the best logic you will ever see in your time, critical thinking that gets answers,

 

 

the obvious logic,

 

and the result, no doubt you want maths, no maxwell's on here then.

 

Why have a forum in the first place if all thats going to get quoted , is our way all the highway?

 

Have I offended anyone or used foul language?

 

Have I learnt a few new things? yes.

 

Next post factual - so I copy and paste wiki,

 

my post are factual, logically using your own physical processes.

 

 

You can not have a vacuum without containment.

 

FACT FACT FACT

 

 

A second does equal 0.288 mile the way it was invented - fact

 

 

Even agreed with it was invented.

 

 

OK, looks like i will get banned from here also for telling reality how it is and not inventing it like science has, I guess the truth hurts....

[Delta1212]

As we've pointed out, your definition of a second is a crappy one if the second is not constant. Crappy as it is, it's still based on rotation, which means the orbital motion doesn't matter

 

You keep saying that science got it wrong. How come it works so well?

Who says it works well? I missed my train by a minute this morning. Maybe it's because my clock measures time in daylight minutes and didn't keep up during the night when time runs faster. Totally not my fault, as I can now explain to my boss.

[Endy0816]

Yes but I know you dont understand the 1 second lines , so had to mention aliens sorry.

 

Each line would represent the different distance over 1 second, so neither second would be correct.

 

t.png

 

How can that not matter? even when considering time on a sun dial, at night I am travelling quicker than in the day, this must mean something....

 

 

Imagine we had two suns. As one sets the other appears to rise.

 

They would travel across the sky at the same rate(due to Earth's rotation). Time does not rely on the motion of the sun.

 

distance / velocity = time

distance / (distance / time) = time

0.288 mile / (0.288 miles/second) = 0.288 mile / (0.288 miles/second) = 1/(1/second) = 1 second

 

This is the same method you are mentally using to tell time with a sundial or the sun directly. As you can see the distance units cancel out.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Endy0816

[Relative]

Relative, can you tell me why, when you have had it explained to you multiple times, that the definition of a second is not based on distance do you continue to insist that it is?

 

I can think of several explanations for this behaviour, none of them flattering. I hope you can come up with one that does you credit and moves this discussion forward, instead of in an inwardly spiraling orbit to death an destruction.

It was accident in history, they never considered what they were doing, it was bad science , and you were all taught this to be accurate and true so why would you consider it. It fits, it works, I shown the maths, but of cause I proved it and it still does not matter.

 

 

Imagine we had two suns. As one sets the other appears to rise.

 

They would travel across the sky at the same rate(due to Earth's rotation). Time does not rely on the motion of the sun.

 

distance / velocity = time

distance / (distance / time) = time

0.288 mile / (0.288 miles/second) = 1 second

still 1 second is equal to 0.288 mile

Relative, can you tell me why, when you have had it explained to you multiple times, that the definition of a second is not based on distance do you continue to insist that it is?

 

I can think of several explanations for this behaviour, none of them flattering. I hope you can come up with one that does you credit and moves this discussion forward, instead of in an inwardly spiraling orbit to death an destruction.

A second is not based on distance because you simply did not know it was, know one ever considered this before and excepted time for granted, when the conclusion is 0.288 mile, history messed up and did not know it.

 

A si second is the same as a second on a clock which was derived from a sun dial which is based on shadow movement which is distance. And it is equal to 0.288 mile.

 

And I have already done my own arguments logically against myself, and I can not flaw the logic in my own assumption.

[Delta1212]

It was accident in history, they never considered what they were doing, it was bad science , and you were all taught this to be accurate and true so why would you consider it. It fits, it works, I shown the maths, but of cause I proved it and it still does not matter.

Thing is, our units of time (and distance) have largely all be redefined long since they were first set up to have more accurate measures. As has been pointed out, rather than being based on the rotation of the Earth, the second is now based on cycles of a cesium atom, which are very precise and would, incidentally, be the same on any planet or for any sized being. We chose the number of "ticks" on this atomic clock to correspond (roughly) to the length of a second as it was previously defined out of convenience for our own timekeeping, but it would be trivial to communicate "ok, a second is this many ticks of the atomic clock" and have an alien understand exactly how long that is, regardless of how fast its own planet rotates.

 

Similarly, the meter is defined according to the speed of light, which is a constant that everyone, of other planets and different sizes, will agree upon. Therefore communicating what fraction of the distance light travels in the time indicated by the ticking of our universal atomic clock would correctly relay the distance represented by a meter.