|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Existence | |||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Without time how can there be change?
Or are you suggesting that the universe is unchanging?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Can you explain how change can occur without time? Do you agree that change would occur in the universe regardless of man's existence?
ICANT writes: Man counts time which is determined by the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun. Man certainly measures time by observing change. But that is not the same thing as you seem to be suggesting. Are you familiar with the idea of an atomic clock?
ICANT writes: The universe does not count time it just exists. An atomic clock on a satellite orbiting Earth will show time passing at a different rate (faster) than an equally accurate clock on the Earth's surface. How do you explain this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ICANT writes: All the universe has to do to change is exist cause if it don't exist it can't change. Something has to exist in order to change. OK.
ICANT writes: Sure I can explain how change can occur without time all there has to be is existence. Existence without time would be static and unchanging existence wouldn't it? Can you explain how this is not the case?
ICANT writes: Straggler writes: An atomic clock on a satellite orbiting Earth will show time passing at a different rate (faster) than an equally accurate clock on the Earth's surface. How do you explain this? Gravity. And why do you think gravity affects the rate at which two identical atomic clocks measure time if time is nothing more than man observing the rotation of the Earth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Time is a property of the universe. Throwing in the term "duration" doesn't change this fact.
ICANT writes: There is no reason for the variation other than the affect of gravity. Why does gravity affect the "duration" measured by the different clocks if time is not a property of the universe? If you are getting a sense of deja vu here have a look at Message 314. In that thread you ended up demonstrating your absolute ignorance by insisting that something moving in a circle wasn't accelerating unless it was getting faster.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ICANT writes: Gravity does not affect the length of the "duration" measured by the two clocks. What are you measuring "duration" in ICANT?
ICANT writes: They both measure the same amount of actual duration. Did they? What were they measuring "duration" in?
ICANT writes: I have a clock that loses 1 hour per day. I am 72 years old at present. ICANT do you really think the predictions General Relativity makes about gravitational time dilation are remotely comparable to your dodgy ticker that is incapable of accurately measuring time? Buy a new clock!!
ICANT asking about acceleration writes: But what does that have to do with an atomic clock at one elevation ticking slower than an atomic clock at a higher elevation due to the force exerted by gravity? Equivalence is one of the key principles that General relativity is founded upon.
Link writes: Einstein came to realize the principle of equivalence, and it states that an accelerated system is completely physically equivalent to a system inside a gravitational field. Gravity as Acceleration For Dummies
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ICANT writes: Gravity does not affect the length of the "duration" measured by the two clocks. They both measure the same amount of actual duration. ICANT how are you determining that the two clocks measured the same duration? What are you measuring "duration" in?
ICANT writes: If you were to move the atomic clock in Greenwich England to Bolder Co., would it still tick slower or would they tick the same? If you built two perfectly identical exceptionally accurate clocks in Greenwich UK, started them both ticking at exactly the same point and then transported one of them to Bolder US they would indeed show very small differing times as having elapsed since starting due to relatavistic effects. Do you dispute this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ICANT writes: Gravity does not affect the length of the "duration" measured by the two clocks. They both measure the same amount of actual duration. ICANT how are you determining that the two clocks measured the same duration? What are you measuring "duration" in?
ICANT writes: If you were to move the atomic clock in Greenwich England to Bolder Co., would it still tick slower or would they tick the same? If you built two perfectly identical exceptionally accurate clocks in Greenwich UK, started them both ticking at exactly the same point and then transported one of them to Bolder US they would indeed show very small differing times as having elapsed since starting due to relatavistic effects. Do you dispute this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ICANT writes: No, they experienced the same amount of time one just measured it wrong. So your argument is based on clocks that are accurate to within one second every 3,700,000,000 years measuring the time wrongly?
ICANT writes: I have no idea what relatavistic effects you are talking about. Well General Relativity, based on time being an intrinsic property of the universe, can predict the effects of space-time curvature (i.e. gravity) on time to a degree of startling experimentally verified accuracy. You on the other hand have invented this term "duration" which apparently is a measure of existence, isn't the same as time but is measured in seconds and then constructed an argument which depends on the most accurate clocks being unable to keep time remotely accurately.
ICANT writes: Wouldn't it have been easier to say 'yes' to answer the question I asked? Only if you want simplicity at the expense of accuracy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Crash writes: Since clocks measure time, it's easiest to see the effects on clocks, but GR isn't something that happens to clocks, it's something that happens to time. Whilst I agree wholeheartedly - How can we convince ICANT of this without sending real twins off at near light speeds and then comparing their wrinkles?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Crash writes: Surely ICANT can't think that a subatomic particle somehow contains a functioning clock. You may be overestimating ICANT here!!! ICANT thinks that the accuracy of an atomic clock is being adversely affected (in a way that exactly matches space-time curvature predictions) by the pull of gravity on the particles involved in the time keeping process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ICANT writes: The statement: "accurate to within one second every 3,700,000,000 years" is only true when the clocks stay at the same distance from the core of the Earth as they were constructed in. No ICANT. It means they measure time to that accuracy regardless of where they are.
ICANT writes: The statement: "accurate to within one second every 3,700,000,000 years" is only true when the clocks stay at the same distance from the core of the Earth as they were constructed in. So if we build one clock at the top of a mountain and one at the bottom do you think they will stay in synch?
ICANT writes: Duration is what is measured by the concept of time. Is "duration" a property of the universe? How do you meaure this "duration"...?
ICANT writes: Since the two clocks are identical would you agree the clock at Bolder ticks faster due to the reduced strength of the gravatational field? Faster relative to what? A clock in a stronger gravitational field? Yes. But which clock measures "duration".........?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ICANT writes: Since the two clocks are identical would you agree the clock at Bolder ticks faster due to the reduced strength of the gravatational field?
Straggler writes: Faster relative to what? A clock in a stronger gravitational field? Yes. But which clock measures "duration".........? Still using the clocks at Bolder and Greenwich. The clock that is still in the reference frame in which it was constructed. ICANT do you think that if we construct a clock in Greenwich and we construct an identical clock in Bolder that the two will stay in synch?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So we have two clocks. One constructed in, and residing in, Bolder. One constructed in, and residing in, Greenwich. Both of them are constructed identically to be accurate to within one second every 3.7 billion years. But the two clocks "tick" at different rates.
ICANT writes: The one in built in Bolder could not tick identical to the one in Greenwich without the tick rate being adjusted to match the one in Greenwich. Why adjust Bolder to agree with Greenwich rather than vice versa?
ICANT writes: Without a tick rate adjustment the one in Bolder would tick faster due to the weaker gravatational field. Indeed. But if I want to measure this "duration" quantity of yours which is distinct from time which of the two clocks should I use? How do I measure this quantity "duration" you keep referring to? (which effectively amounts to an absolute time - whether you realise this or not)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ICANT writes: Straggler writes: So we have two clocks. One constructed in, and residing in, Bolder. One constructed in, and residing in, Greenwich. Both of them are constructed identically to be accurate to within one second every 3.7 billion years. But the two clocks "tick" at different rates. Yes they tick different rates because of the effect of the gravatational fields they reside in. OK. So lets say that I have the readout from each of these clocks side by side on the computer screen in front of me. If I want to very very precisely measure how long something takes which clock should I use and why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Oh ICANT you are so close and yet I fear so so far......
Straggler writes: So we have two clocks. One constructed in, and residing in, Bolder. One constructed in, and residing in, Greenwich. Both of them are constructed identically to be accurate to within one second every 3.7 billion years. But the two clocks "tick" at different rates. ICANT writes: Yes they tick different rates because of the effect of the gravatational fields they reside in. Straggler writes: OK. So lets say that I have the readout from each of these clocks side by side on the computer screen in front of me. If I want to very very precisely measure how long something takes which clock should I use and why? ICANT writes: I must correct myself as I was not taking into consideration that the clocks built in different places would be calibrated to the international agreed tick rate of 9,192,631,770 ticks per second. So they would both tick the same until moved out of their IFR. Yes ICANT they both tick at 9,192,631,770 ticks per second. Yet the two clocks in question show very accurate but slightly different durations for the same event. So if I, sitting at my desk, want to very very precisely measure how long something takes which clock should I use and why?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024