Time Puzzle discovered

God this guy is a dope.

A second is generally defined as is 9,192,631,770 times the period of the natural resonance requency of the cesium atom (generally at sea level at the Equator - as height - the precise proximity to the point of suspension of a large gravitation source (the Earth) directly affects local spacetime).

And that's all she wrote folks.

0 Replies

Don't forget to be suspicious of science while believing in the kind of anonymous mush spooned up in the first post of this thread.

Joe(Pass the salt. I need a grain.)Nation

0 Replies

Let us review where we are:

We all believe in two concepts of the second.
1. The span on the time-line that lasts one second.
2. An event that lasts one second.

So far, we are all in agreement. We have two concepts of second. Yes? Yes. Now everyone can straighten out their knickers and calm down.

0 Replies

Er wrong, again.

A second is a measure of time.

An event is something that happens which can possibly be measured, including its duration over time.

Your time line is a construct to illustrate events that have a duration in time.

0 Replies

g__day wrote:

Er wrong, again.

A second is a measure of time.

An event is something that happens which can possibly be measured, including its duration over time.

Your time line is a construct to illustrate events that have a duration in time.

That's what I said. What's the matter with you man. A 'second is a measure of time' presents two concepts of the second. One lasts a second in the dimension of time (time-line) and the other is an event that lasts a second.

0 Replies

A second is not an event. There may be an event lasting a second.

So who are you quoting? I am desperate to know.

Joe(desperado)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

A second is not an event. There may be an event lasting a second.

So who are you quoting? I am desperate to know.

Joe(desperado)Nation

If you believe in Time, then a second is a portion of Time, or a segment of the time-line, whether or not there are any events associated with it.

The day of our promised ones, our sources, our Scientists, shall arise, I say to you. Be patient my friends, for the moment of your vindication, truth, revelation, and our prophets of science approacheth.

0 Replies

I can't waiteth.

0 Replies

Oh, no! A second is not a second! This ruins everything!

How am I going to reconcile my perfectly timed schedule of eating and video games in light of this new research?!

So I would like to know exactly WHAT is this "time-line"? And are these values withing experimental error of one second exactly?

0 Replies

ghostofgauss wrote:

Oh, no! A second is not a second! This ruins everything!

How am I going to reconcile my perfectly timed schedule of eating and video games in light of this new research?!

So I would like to know exactly WHAT is this "time-line"? And are these values withing experimental error of one second exactly?

The time-line is something we all believe in. Time is stretched out like a line and events are placed on it. Past, present and future are represented on the time line. Segments of the time-line are represented by seconds, minutes, years, etc. An event lasting one second is placed on a one-second segment of the time-line.
I am only repeating what we already believe in.

0 Replies

But there is so much more, John, how about a time-line that curves around like a helix and just begins again? Or how about the idea some scientists that I've read about (I won't name them because I know you don't like actually knowing the names of people who actually are doing the work and the thinking....) of Imaginary Time in a world of eleven or twelve dimensions.? *

Imaginary time. I think John Lennon would have loved it.

There is considerable debate over whether the universe cares whether there is a time-line or not. It, the universe, doesn't need time to operate, we use time to measure, but that's just us. The universe would go on just fine without a concept of a time-line, even if some of us believe there is one.

I say some of us because -nearly quoting Bob Dylan here- the Times, they are a changing... . For the longest uh time, we thought nothing could travel faster than light, ---increases in mass as the speed of light was approached would prohibit exceeding the limit... but now at least some people think that nuclear particles can move faster then light and that they do it all the er um time by defying time as we think about it now.

So even if there is a measurable second, or several of them, the muons don't bother wearing watches.

But you were saying..

Joe(*Bryson 2004)Nation

0 Replies

JJ - never include me in your royal "we all believe in"

Your misunderstanding of science is either a strange and clever parody that is too surreal for me to get into, or you are plugging misunderstandings with meta-physics - and bad ones at that - in a rather obscure and dopey way.

I vote option two. Your logic is always as cute as a 1 = 2, proof; its rather juvenille.

Why not relax a bit and try and stick with one system (physics) or the other (any wierd belief system your like). It's when you try and link them and defend it - extremely poorly - that it becomes sad.

If you insist then fine, to you there are multiple definitions of a second and across non relativistic frameworks they are inconsistent. Do this make you happy, or is it the sharing of these views and your attempts to espouse this world view that floats your boat?

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

time line is a human concept.

A time line is a human cultural concept. Not all cultures see time as linear and not all cultures assume that times arrow points only forward.

0 Replies

JJ's posts always remind me of that famous reply by Samuel Johnstone that goes

"your work is both good and original, but unfortunately the parts that are good aren't original and the parts that are original aren't good"

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

But there is so much more, John, how about a time-line that curves around like a helix and just begins again? Or how about the idea some scientists that I've read about (I won't name them because I know you don't like actually knowing the names of people who actually are doing the work and the thinking....) of Imaginary Time in a world of eleven or twelve dimensions.? *

Imaginary time. I think John Lennon would have loved it.

There is considerable debate over whether the universe cares whether there is a time-line or not. It, the universe, doesn't need time to operate, we use time to measure, but that's just us. The universe would go on just fine without a concept of a time-line, even if some of us believe there is one.

I say some of us because -nearly quoting Bob Dylan here- the Times, they are a changing... . For the longest uh time, we thought nothing could travel faster than light, ---increases in mass as the speed of light was approached would prohibit exceeding the limit... but now at least some people think that nuclear particles can move faster then light and that they do it all the er um time by defying time as we think about it now.

So even if there is a measurable second, or several of them, the muons don't bother wearing watches.

But you were saying..

Joe(*Bryson 2004)Nation

Having Cake and eating it springs to mind. It's all very well for us to say that the universe and the muons aren't bothered about stopwatches and time, yet we seem to take liberties with this position when 'we use time to measure'.

If time was a helix, then like curved space, we could imagine the curve supporting some accelerative function. But then we are unable to distinguish this from space itself. No more shall I say on this, as it is one of the last bricks in my model.

0 Replies

We must be brave. We shall accept our beliefs for what they are, or allow them to control us even to the very summit of our endeavours.

We all believe in Time. And, we announce that the scientists believe in Time; or they would not develop theories with Time firmly entrenched in their mathematics. Now follow this or remain puppets of your beliefs: Events are mapped out upon the dimension of Time, because Time provides one of the essential physical frameworks constitutive of an event. It follows that a period, or segment of Time is found on the dimension of Time, whether or not there are any events associated with that dimensional segment. We have, therefore, two notions of the second - a segment of the time dimension or time-line, and an event lasting one second. Now, how does it follow that both MUST BE the same?

0 Replies

Acquiunk wrote:

dagmaraka wrote:
time line is a human concept.

A time line is a human cultural concept. Not all cultures see time as linear and not all cultures assume that times arrow points only forward.

and that, of course. but what do we know? throw a brick who is without guilt! oops, that was one of JJ's last bricks in his model. Sorry I threw it.

0 Replies

Someone was dropped on his head at an early age...

0 Replies

or recently

0 Replies

the first ever thread i read in this forum and it is posted by someone who clearly has some issues. dude, the second is a thing CREATED BY HUMANS. we made it up, just like we made up the metre. it is just a unit. according to your logic, is their also two different values for the metre? that is, is a metre as in a part of a kilometre 1.0000000000092 metres long but an object precisely 1 metre long actually 9.999999999999999934 metres long? i came here to find intelligent questions and i get this. jeez.

0 Replies

Time Puzzle discovered

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know