Science ignores its own science and stereotypes!.

[Relative]

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.

I know that and all good if your new clock was not based on the same second which we can trace back to been the same value as distance.

 

''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.''

 

No they dont cancel out it is still distance.

[swansont]

 

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

I found your problem. "I can not flaw the logic in my own assumption" is true on more than one level.

 

The trick is not ignoring the people who find the flaws and point them out to you.

[Relative]

I will ask you a question, 1 second on the new clock is equal to how much rotation of the Earth when Using the Sun has a marker?

[Strange]

 

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.

 

Even if that were true, it was fixed when the second was redefined so that it is no longer based on distance.

[Relative]

I found your problem. "I can not flaw the logic in my own assumption" is true on more than one level.

 

The trick is not ignoring the people who find the flaws and point them out to you.

Yes , but you have not flawed my logic in any sense, or physical process that says I am wrong.

 

It is unarguable.

 

Time is derived by distance which is not good.

 

Even if that were true, it was fixed when the second was redefined so that it is no longer based on distance.

I will ask you a question, 1 second on the new clock is equal to how much rotation of the Earth when Using the Sun has a marker?

[Strange]

I will ask you a question, 1 second on the new clock is equal to how much rotation of the Earth when Using the Sun has a marker?

 

It varies. Because the second is now fixed but the rotation of the Earth changes.

[swansont]

Yes , but you have not flawed my logic in any sense, or physical process that says I am wrong.

 

It is unarguable.

 

Time is derived by distance which is not good.

 

The earth doesn't rotate faster at night. That's wrong.

 

Time is not equal to, nor is it based on, distance.

[Relative]

 

It varies. Because the second is now fixed but the rotation of the Earth changes.

So if the earth was at a set velocity and not changing it would be I believe 0.288 mile per second?

The earth doesn't rotate faster at night. That's wrong.

 

Time is not equal to, nor is it based on, distance.

the earth does not rotate quicker at night but we move quicker, because we are travelling forward at night around the eliptic of the sun.

 

 

Where as day we travel backwards opposite to the forward although we still go forward, we do go backwards and forwards in the day.

[Strange]

So if the earth was at a set velocity and not changing it would be I believe 0.288 mile per second?

 

It might be, it depends how fast it rotates. And what latitude you are at.

 

But now you are making up things that aren't true ("Earth at a set velocity") in order to defend something which is wrong.

 

That is what we call "intellectual dishonesty".

 

Just admit it: you were and are wrong about this.

[Delta1212]

So if the earth was at a set velocity and not changing it would be I believe 0.288 mile per second?

It'd be about a foot, actually.

[Relative]

and tim eis equal to distance

 

 

It might be, it depends how fast it rotates. And what latitude you are at.

 

But now you are making up things that aren't true ("Earth at a set velocity") in order to defend something which is wrong.

 

That is what we call "intellectual dishonesty".

 

Just admit it: you were and are wrong about this.

actually at first they did not know that the velocity of the earth changed, that is why they changed it to the new clock, but the second regardless originated by distance, your new second is the same has a clock second, so there really is a paradox.

[Delta1212]

the earth does not rotate quicker at night but we move quicker, because we are travelling forward at night around the eliptic of the sun.

 

 

Where as day we travel backwards opposite to the forward although we still go forward, we do go backwards and forwards in the day.

This is only true if you choose to use the frame of the sun. If you take into consideration the sun's rotation around the galactic center, then whether we're moving faster during day or night depends on what season it is (where we are in our orbit around the sun). If you take into account our galaxy's movement with respect to the local group... actually, I have no idea what direction we're moving in.

 

Anyway, it's generally easier just to take thing's from Earth's frame.

[Relative]

It'd be about a foot, actually.

where do you get a foot from?

This is only true if you choose to use the frame of the sun. If you take into consideration the sun's rotation around the galactic center, then whether we're moving faster during day or night depends on what season it is (where we are in our orbit around the sun). If you take into account our galaxy's movement with respect to the local group... actually, I have no idea what direction we're moving in.

 

Anyway, it's generally easier just to take thing's from Earth's frame.

well we spin anti clockwise and orbit the sun anti clockwise, it is not hard to see we go backwards and forwards in the day

My clock says 13.28 , I bet the new clock says the same.

[Delta1212]

and tim eis equal to distance

 

actually at first they did not know that the velocity of the earth changed, that is why they changed it to the new clock, but the second regardless originated by distance, your new second is the same has a clock second, so there really is a paradox.

There is not a paradox. It only seems like a paradox because you think that an alien would use the same definition for a second but adjusted for the size and rotational speed of its own planet, and that we would all then confuse an Earth second for an alien second, or else that an alien would look at the previous definition of an Earth second and then apply the rule used to calculated the length of that second to its home world instead of to the Earth in order to figure out how long a second is. This wouldn't happen because we're all aware of how to convert between units and the definition of a second was never "the length of time it takes for the planet you happen to be on at this moment to rotate such that you have travelled 0.288 miles."

 

Regardless, an alien will be perfectly capable of measuring how long it takes for 9,192,631,770 cycles on our cesium clock to take place and if they are using an alien second, they will be able to say "ah, this represents 0.8 seconds" and they will then have a reference to easily convert between Earth seconds and alien seconds because we all agree on how long it takes for that clock to tick.

where do you get a foot from?

 

From standing near the North Pole.

[Relative]

And yes I do scratch my head when I considered time, I am not a looney, it has boggled my head too.

There is not a paradox. It only seems like a paradox because you think that an alien would use the same definition for a second but adjusted for the size and rotational speed of its own planet, and that we would all then confuse an Earth second for an alien second, or else that an alien would look at the previous definition of an Earth second and then apply the rule used to calculated the length of that second to its home world instead of to the Earth in order to figure out how long a second is. This wouldn't happen because we're all aware of how to convert between units and the definition of a second was never "the length of time it takes for the planet you happen to be on at this moment to rotate such that you have travelled 0.288 miles."

Regardless, an alien will be perfectly capable of measuring how long it takes for 9,192,631,770 cycles on our cesium clock to take place and if they are using an alien second, they will be able to say "ah, this represents 0.8 seconds" and they will then have a reference to easily convert between Earth seconds and alien seconds because we all agree on how long it takes for that clock to tick.
From standing near the North Pole.

I know you do not understand me , if I placed a stick in the ground on earth, and it the stick did one rotation back to its starting point, it would take 24 hours.

 

 

If I put a stick on a different planet, it will take 48hrs for example.

 

 

So there second is twice our second, the distance would be different, that the stick moved, in one second, science says we dictate the universe and our way is it.

 

 

A second was derived by distance, it is not arguable , it is history, I am correct ,

[Delta1212]

And yes I do scratch my head when I considered time, I am not a looney, it has boggled my head too.

 

I know you do not understand me , if I placed a stick in the ground on earth, and it the stick did one rotation back to its starting point, it would take 24 hours.

 

 

If I put a stick on a different planet, it will take 48hrs for example.

 

 

So there second is twice our second, the distance would be different, that the stick moved, in one second, science says we dictate the universe and our way is it.

 

 

A second was derived by distance, it is not arguable , it is history, I am correct ,

How many minutes are in an hour?

[Relative]

and time is also based on velocity...

How many minutes are in an hour?

is this a trick question, 60 minutes

[Delta1212]

and time is also based on velocity...

 

is this a trick question, 60 minutes

It's not a trick.

 

Ok, how many seconds are in a minute?

[Relative]

and a second is also based on velocity.

It's not a trick.

Ok, how many seconds are in a minute?

60

[Delta1212]

and a second is also based on velocity.

 

60

Ok, so if there are 60 seconds in a minute, and 60 minutes in an hour, there are 3,600 seconds in an hour. That means there are 86,400 seconds in a 24 hour day on Earth.

 

On our hypothetical planet that takes 48 hours to rotate fully, 60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour and 48 hours yields 172,800 seconds per day. It takes twice as long for the planet to complete one day and there are twice as many seconds in the planet's day.

 

Therefore the length of a second is the same on this planet as on Earth.

[Strange]

your new second is the same has a clock second, so there really is a paradox.

 

It is the same as a "clock second" because clocks are designed to use the new definition of the second.

 

It is not the same as the old second. And, as such, it is not a distance and it is not even equivalent to a fixed distance.

[Relative]

Ok, so if there are 60 seconds in a minute, and 60 minutes in an hour, there are 3,600 seconds in an hour. That means there are 86,400 seconds in a 24 hour day on Earth.

 

On our hypothetical planet that takes 48 hours to rotate fully, 60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour and 48 hours yields 172,800 seconds per day. It takes twice as long for the planet to complete one day and there are twice as many seconds in the planet's day.

 

Therefore the length of a second is the same on this planet as on Earth.

Not quite , that is because you are defining their distance of a second the same has yours, our second would be 0.288 mile, their second would be a greater distance or lesser distance depending on circumference and velocity.

 

do u see now what I am getting at?

 

It is the same as a "clock second" because clocks are designed to use the new definition of the second.

 

It is not the same as the old second. And, as such, it is not a distance and it is not even equivalent to a fixed distance.

But the second was invented before our time, a second is an invention by origination using distance/velocity and the second has only changed its colour, it is still a second therefore still the same thing from the origin.

[Strange]

So there second is twice our second

 

Only if the defined a second in the same way that we used to. But what of there were 17 hours in their day, each divided in 4 quonks, further divided into 321 fribbles.

 

Then how long is our fribble?

and time is also based on velocity...

 

Phew. I thought you said "viscosity" there for a moment!

[Delta1212]

Not quite , that is because you are defining their distance of a second the same has yours, our second would be 0.288 mile, their second would be a greater distance or lesser distance depending on circumference and velocity.

 

do u see now what I am getting at?

 

Ok, then are there 30 seconds in a minute, 30 minutes in an hour or 24 hours in their day? Edited July 29, 2014 by Delta1212

[Strange]

Not quite , that is because you are defining their distance of a second the same has yours, our second would be 0.288 mile, their second would be a greater distance or lesser distance depending on circumference and velocity.

 

Exactly! There is no fixed relation between distance and time. The second is simply a division of a longer time.

 

 

But the second was invented before our time, a second is an invention by origination using distance/velocity

 

No. It wasn't based on distance and velocity. The distance and velocity were not known at the time. It was purely defined by subdivisions of 24 hours. (Actually, I suspect by subdividing 12 hours but I can't be bothered to check.)

Edited July 29, 2014 by Strange