Science ignores its own science and stereotypes!.

[Relative]

 

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

 

 

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.)

yes exactly subdivisions of 24 hours that is equal to distance rotated, and velocity. Without travelling distance and velocity there would be no clock from that time, the sun dial relied on movement, movement meaning distance travelled and velocity.

[Delta1212]

yes exactly subdivisions of 24 hours that is equal to distance rotated, and velocity. Without travelling distance and velocity there would be no clock from that time, the sun dial relied on movement, movement meaning distance travelled and velocity.

I think it would be useful to have a quick glance at this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

[Strange]

yes exactly subdivisions of 24 hours that is equal to distance rotated, and velocity.

 

Yes, but it was NOT defined in terms of velocity and distance because the velocity and distance were not known.

 

Your assuming that something we know now is significant. It is like insisting that a horse is an animal with iron feet even though we know that wild horses don't wear hooves.

 

The second (a unit of time) was defined in terms of the day (a unit of time). It is now defined in terms of blah blah cesium blah (a unit of time).

 

It is not equal to some fraction of a mile (a unit of length) although you can make an arbitrary connection to an equivalent distance. But there are an infinite number of ways of doing that. For example, you could consider how far the Sun moves round the galaxy, or how far my dog can run in one second. These also give you distances related to 1 second. BUT THEY ARE ALL EQUALLY MEANINGLESS.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Strange

[Relative]

I think it would be useful to have a quick glance at this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

Thank you great link , but when I provided the maths , that fits, fallacy is over ruled.

 

1 second is equal to 0.288 mile at 1000 mph

 

there can be no argument,

 

This was the origin of science, 360 degrees, 3600 seconds and so on,

Obviously the mentally of history was rather different than today,

[Strange]

1 second is equal to 0.288 mile at 1000 mph

 

You can't even get your own maths right.

 

At 1,000 MPH, 1 second is equivalent to 0.277777778 miles.

 

Note they are not equal. That is like saying 1 apple is equal to 0.28 oranges.

[Relative]

 

Yes, but it was NOT defined in terms of velocity and distance because the velocity and distance were not known.

 

Your assuming that something we know now is significant. It is like insisting that a horse is an animal with iron feet even though we know that wild horses don't wear hooves.

 

The second (a unit of time) was defined in terms of the day (a unit of time). It is now defined in terms of blah blah cesium blah (a unit of time).

 

It is not equal to some fraction of a mile (a unit of length) although you can make an arbitrary connection to an equivalent distance. But there are an infinite number of ways of doing that. For example, you could consider how far the Sun moves round the galaxy, or how far my dog can run in one second. These also give you distances related to 1 second. BUT THEY ARE ALL EQUALLY MEANINGLESS.

The whole point is, how can you say the universe is x amount of age etc etc, when science clearly just make thinks up and invents thinks, how can you say the blah blah clock, a second on that is a second?

 

Time as we record it is nothing more than a diary , or drawing x's on a jail war, it doe snot tell you the age of the universe or the planet.

 

You can't even get your own maths right.

 

At 1,000 MPH, 1 second is equivalent to 0.277777778 miles.

 

Note they are not equal. That is like saying 1 apple is equal to 0.28 oranges.

At least you understand it Strange, and my calculator must have rounded it up lol, equivalent is the same as equal, but I would go with that.

[Delta1212]

Thank you great link , but when I provided the maths , that fits, fallacy is over ruled.

 

1 second is equal to 0.288 mile at 1000 mph

 

there can be no argument,

 

This was the origin of science, 360 degrees, 3600 seconds and so on,

 

Obviously the mentally of history was rather different than today,

Correct, it was different from today. I'm unsure why you are having trouble accepting that one of those differences is how we define the second.

 

Just because it is mathematically true that that distance is covered in one second at that speed does not make that the definition of a second.

 

I can, similarly, state that a second is 1/60 of the time it takes to travel 1 mile at 60 mph. That is mathematically true, but it is not the definition of a second.

[Strange]

The whole point is, how can you say the universe is x amount of age etc etc, when science clearly just make thinks up and invents thinks, how can you say the blah blah clock, a second on that is a second?

 

Because, once you have defined a second, you can use it to measure things. That is the whole point of defining a unit of time.

 

There is nothing special about the length of time we call a second. Any more than the inch or the cm used for distance. It is just a convenient unit.

 

Science doesn't "make things up". It observes and tests things. (Note: it is the latter of those two that you omit to do.) The age of the universe is calculated from various sources of data.

 

Time as we record it is nothing more than a diary , or drawing x's on a jail war, it doe snot tell you the age of the universe or the planet.

 

If we can use seconds to work out how long a day and a year are (and that is the way it is done now) and we can use the year to work out how old you are, then why shouldn't we also use the same units to figure the age of the Earth and even the universe.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Strange

[swansont]

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.

Which doesn't matter, because you're using a second based on rotation and not translational or orbital speed.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

The entire thread (after somewhere around post 10 or so) is off-topic (at least when we consider the 1st post as the topic, which we do). That is against our rules.

 

Relative, this forum is not a platform where you can re-invent science as you think it should be. The scientific method is a very successful and tested method.

 

Frankly, I am not sure why we allowed this thread to grow so long, but I guess it has a lot to do with the incredibly high rate of posting in this thread (it's only 1 day, and 159 posts).

 

I am going to do the stereotypical moderator thing when rules are violated, and close this thread.

Thread closed.