Relative Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 Yes you are. Specifically, you made this up "The point been that history, already defines a second equal to 0.288 mile, because this how time was originally measured,". It was originally measured using a sundial (pace Studiot) and that wasn't going to be big enough to measure seconds. There was no aspect of those sundials that was anything to do with 0.288 miles. Yes I know it was a sun dial, and the shadow on the sun dial would of been split into sections, hence a second, a hour, but the truth is that second is still equal to the movement so is still equal to 0.288 mile which ever way you try to twist it, thats the outcome and the logic and fits. Do the other planets it works, I made it fit and I dont know maths that well. I am in day time here, if you are at night you are moving faster than me...... Hows that for a paradox?
swansont Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 I am north I am making nothing up, how many hours in one solar day? One solar day been one revolution, one revolution meaning there has to be a distance covered per hour , per second. Time was made up to fit.......it is not really relative to anything. Do we not count the years in days anymore? You are equating time with a definition of a unit of time. They aren't the same thing. Yes, the length of the second is made up. It is defined by us. Fundamental units need to be defined. It's already been pointed out that your definition only works on the equator (and then only marginally). That makes for a poor standard. Ideally you want every interested party to have the ability to realize a standard.
Relative Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 You are equating time with a definition of a unit of time. They aren't the same thing. Yes, the length of the second is made up. It is defined by us. Fundamental units need to be defined. It's already been pointed out that your definition only works on the equator (and then only marginally). That makes for a poor standard. Ideally you want every interested party to have the ability to realize a standard. Yes , and maybe by doing an average calculation of all the planets at an equator point, an average may be better than what you have now, because the second is made up, age, etc, would also be made up, because years are based on seconds , so years are made up also, time starts from zero, the beginning where it was almost certainly dark only to start with. Darkness came first.
Delta1212 Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) Yes I know it was a sun dial, and the shadow on the sun dial would of been split into sections, hence a second, a hour, but the truth is that second is still equal to the movement so is still equal to 0.288 mile which ever way you try to twist it, thats the outcome and the logic and fits. Do the other planets it works, I made it fit and I dont know maths that well. I am in day time here, if you are at night you are moving faster than me...... Hows that for a paradox? How does being in night mean someone is moving faster? Edited July 28, 2014 by Delta1212
Relative Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 How does being in night mean someone is moving faster? You really need to ask that? it is day time here, I am currently travelling at approx 1000 mph, you also if in darkness are travelling at approx 1000 mph, we are also both travelling forward along the eliptic orbit, however I travel forward but I also travel backwards with the earth's anti clockwise while you travel forward. Right hand forward, left hand back. Flying around the earth at the speed of C the opposite way will only make you dizzy , you will not time travel.
Delta1212 Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Yes , and maybe by doing an average calculation of all the planets at an equator point, an average may be better than what you have now, because the second is made up, age, etc, would also be made up, because years are based on seconds , so years are made up also, time starts from zero, the beginning where it was almost certainly dark only to start with. Darkness came first.A year is based off of how long it takes to orbit the sun, not off of the length of a second. That said, yes, both are arbitrarily defined units of time and therefore "made up." We all understand this. I'm not sure what your point.
Relative Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 You may want to rethink your time dilation and equate for that.
Delta1212 Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 You may want to rethink your time dilation and equate for that.Equate for what?
Relative Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 A year is based off of how long it takes to orbit the sun, not off of the length of a second. That said, yes, both are arbitrarily defined units of time and therefore "made up." We all understand this. I'm not sure what your point. My point been what you say the age of the universe is etc, would be entirely untrue. Equate for what? Spinning backwards Also you sort of measure distance with distance which does not make much sense.
John Cuthber Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 You really need to ask that? it is day time here, I am currently travelling at approx 1000 mph, you also if in darkness are travelling at approx 1000 mph, we are also both travelling forward along the eliptic orbit, however I travel forward but I also travel backwards with the earth's anti clockwise while you travel forward. Right hand forward, left hand back. Flying around the earth at the speed of C the opposite way will only make you dizzy , you will not time travel. I think this is the point at which trolling became the only credible explanation 2
Greg H. Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 You really need to ask that? it is day time here, I am currently travelling at approx 1000 mph, you also if in darkness are travelling at approx 1000 mph, we are also both travelling forward along the eliptic orbit, however I travel forward but I also travel backwards with the earth's anti clockwise while you travel forward. Right hand forward, left hand back. Flying around the earth at the speed of C the opposite way will only make you dizzy , you will not time travel. I've read this a couple of times. It remains gibberish. I can only conclude that you are either deliberately trolling us or that you lack the skills to effectively communicate your ideas in a fashion that makes them understandable by other people. 1
Relative Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 I've read this a couple of times. It remains gibberish. I can only conclude that you are either deliberately trolling us or that you lack the skills to effectively communicate your ideas in a fashion that makes them understandable by other people. The Earth rotates anti-clock wise at 1000mph The Earth also orbits the Sun.AT 67,108 mph Also anti-clockwise In the daytime hours in The UK I travel at 1000mph although static, anti-clockwise , backwards to the direction of the way of the Earth's orbital path around the Sun. At night, I travel at 1000mph and in the same direction as the orbital around the SUN.
John Cuthber Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Do you understand that, in the UK the speed due to the Earth's rotation isn't anything like 1000 MPH, it's about half that?
Delta1212 Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 My point been what you say the age of the universe is etc, would be entirely untrue. Spinning backwards Also you sort of measure distance with distance which does not make much sense. A year is a defined measure of time. There is no special significance to the number 14 billion as it pertains to the the age of the universe. There is also no particular reason why unit of time should have be the exact length that a year is (other than that it's useful for humans living on Earth for seasonal purposes). That said, just because the definition is arbitrary doesn't make it an invalid reference. As long as the definition is consistent, you can use any arbitrary reference for measurement purposes. 14 billion years is a specifically defined period of time. That period of time corresponds to the age of the universe. There is no particular reason we'd have to measure that length of time in years, but as long as we all agree on the length of a year, there's nothing wrong with measuring it in years. You can measure time in any arbitrarily defined unit you want just so long as that unit has a generally agreed upon definition. 1
Relative Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 Do you understand that, in the UK the speed due to the Earth's rotation isn't anything like 1000 MPH, it's about half that? Yes I understand and my explanation was more to show the travelling backwards part, I understand diameter and velocity difference. and would it not be faster than the equator?
John Cuthber Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Yes I understand and my ... and would it not be faster than the equator? Thanks for confirming, once again, that you do not understand.
Relative Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 Thanks for confirming, once again, that you do not understand. How do not understand? if a outer circumference like the equator spins at 1000 mph , that would mean that any inner circumferences would rotate quicker , like on a race track, athletes have staggered start allowing for the outer circumference difference. there is less miles to cover is there is not?
dimreepr Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) How do not understand? if a outer circumference like the equator spins at 1000 mph , that would mean that any inner circumferences would rotate quicker You have it backwards. Edit/ The RPM would be the same but speed would be slower. Edited July 28, 2014 by dimreepr
John Cuthber Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 How do not understand? if a outer circumference like the equator spins at 1000 mph , that would mean that any inner circumferences would rotate quicker , like on a race track, athletes have staggered start allowing for the outer circumference difference. there is less miles to cover is there is not? Thanks for confirming, once again, that you do not understand.
Delta1212 Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 How do not understand? if a outer circumference like the equator spins at 1000 mph , that would mean that any inner circumferences would rotate quicker , like on a race track, athletes have staggered start allowing for the outer circumference difference. there is less miles to cover is there is not? The inner track on is "quicker" in a race because you can complete a full circuit in the same time as an outer track while moving at a slower pace. There is less distance to cover, so if you make the loop in the same amount of time, you are moving slower. Or, alternatively, if you move at the same speed, you will finish the loop much sooner since you have less distance to cover. It's not because things in an inner circle naturally move faster.
swansont Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Yes , and maybe by doing an average calculation of all the planets at an equator point, an average may be better than what you have now, because the second is made up, age, etc, would also be made up, because years are based on seconds , so years are made up also, time starts from zero, the beginning where it was almost certainly dark only to start with. Darkness came first. Regardless of the improvement, it still requires that you be on the equator, which makes it a poor choice for a standard, and one reason why it's not the standard. A year, OTOH, can be measured by all, the way we've defined it. Spinning backwards Direction of rotation has no effect. Someone familiar with the concept should understand that.
I-try Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Having expended the time and effort to read the answers, and the defence put up by Relative to support his argument concerning the subject of this thread, I find I must admire the patience of those who have supplied many answers and also kept their comments regarding his efforts quite moderate. I also agree with some of Relative's comments regarding the conceptual verses the mathematical with regards to value for the advancement of physics. However, if Relative is attempting to present some idea of value to the advancement of physics, I cannot see anything of value being eventually arrived at with regards the accusation implied in title of this thread, 3
studiot Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Having expended the time and effort to read the answers, and the defence put up by Relative to support his argument concerning the subject of this thread, I find I must admire the patience of those who have supplied many answers and also kept their comments regarding his efforts quite moderate. I also agree with some of Relative's comments regarding the conceptual verses the mathematical with regards to value for the advancement of physics. However, if Relative is attempting to present some idea of value to the advancement of physics, I cannot see anything of value being eventually arrived at with regards the accusation implied in title of this thread, Well said +1
Relative Posted July 29, 2014 Author Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) Regardless of the improvement, it still requires that you be on the equator, which makes it a poor choice for a standard, and one reason why it's not the standard. A year, OTOH, can be measured by all, the way we've defined it. Direction of rotation has no effect. Someone familiar with the concept should understand that. 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? Well said +1 and actually I agree. This thread and the posts have had great patience and understanding, and from an outside perspective viewer to science, this is much more of an adult behaviour I would expect from clever people. I applaud this science forum on this thread... a glass sphere you are looking through it I see this and see this must have some effect on how time is calculated for the universal age etc, ''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. Edited July 29, 2014 by Relative
ajb Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) 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. 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. 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. 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". 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. 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. Edited July 29, 2014 by ajb
Recommended Posts