The Illusion Of Time - The Fabric Of The Cosmos

from
https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100714190519AAOVqbg
:It is duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of radiation which corresponds to the transtion between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of cesium-133 atom .

Is there a similarity?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does it matter? No pun intended.

Does not anybody understand that it is the movement , the back a forth , the position at one point and then the position of another of the electron, that governs this measurement of time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are insisting on inaccuracy, Paddoboy.

If the measurement of time is based on the Earth's rotation etc, then we should be able to define or derive the "Base unit of time" with the orbital period. Can we? If your answer is "yes" please tell how?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The second is the base unit of time, measured via the caesium atom and derives from other units of time based on periodic movements of celestial bodies such as the Sun and Earth and the Moon.
The Measuring of time arose by timing these periodic movements of celestial bodies gave us measured time intervals of a day, approx 24 hrs, a month, approx 28 days, and a year 365.25 days.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-time-division-days-hours-minutes/
Astronomers use a more accurate form of time keeping via the background stars, in relation to Earth's rotation with respect to these stars.
A sidereal day is around/approx 23hrs 56 minutes.

 

Thats it, your reference to Babylonian / Egyptians etc justifies my post #119....

This is what I wrote in post #119.

"You have possibly read the history of time measurement and long drawn process of standardization, and came up with this, currently, incorrect interpretation"

Note: Most of your statements, which I have questioned, in other threads also are suffering from same problem. There is a vast amount of literature available on internet, you read some pop science (or easy journal based paper) and take that as mainstream truth, and then persist with that.

And Yes, I am always learning, but are you?

 

It does not justify your posts.

You have written of all references as pop science and even disputed professional experts.
The essence of the article supports all I have said.

Far more than you obviously.
The main units of time measurement are those based on the motions of the earth, Sun and Moon. They are the day, month and year.
The second and hour are derived concepts with the second as the base unit dictated by the ceasium clock.
Ask yourself...what came first.

On second thoughts, don't do that, it will create too much confusion for you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are Uneducable !!

 

Most trolls in the end can only resort to insults.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Wouldn't it be easier just to admit you are wrong......

 

The main units of time measurement are those based on the motions of the earth, Sun and Moon. They are the day, month and year.
The second and hour are derived concepts with the second as the base unit dictated by the caesium clock.
Ask yourself...what came first.

 

Well you are the King of insults pad and wouldn't ever admit being wrong.

 

So say all the trolls and cranks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well your both a troll and crank. So you agree with yourself. Ironic.

 

Your back and forth one liners/words are doing nothing for your credibility river. Whether you are a troll and a crank or I am as you claim, will be decided by your peers and my peers on this forum.

 

Nothing is hidden. The minus sign is trumped by the square term. Therefore it matters not whether the moving frame is approaching or receding. It is moving, therefore special relativity engages. An observer in one frame notices that time dilates in the other. Go back to Einstein's example of a person dropping a ball on a train while an observer watches the train go by, and sees the ball fall in the window. To the moving observer, the ball falls straight down. To the person at the station, the ball falls along a slant, which cuts more of local space than it does of the space in the train. Yet it does so in the same amount of time, referred to the station clock. In order for this to be true, time must dilate on the train, according to the person at the station. Yet, when we reverse roles, and let the person at the station drop a ball, the observer on the train sees it traverse a slant, whereas the person on the platform sees it drop vertically - a shorter distance. Now the person in the train has no choice but to infer that time dilates on the platform. To get the point of relativity, allow both observes to drop a ball while observing the other person dropping a ball. Each concludes that the other is undergoing time dilation. Notice direction has nothing to do with this.

Actually you brought it up, not me.

No, you are wrong. Introducing a third reference frame only adds a few steps in which you will eliminate the 3rd frame insofar as it is irrelevant. Relativity applies to any TWO frames. Time dilates in the frame that leaves the inertial frame (i.e. moves relative to that frame) regardless of direction. Trying to contrive an exception to the rule by contriving a different problem is not going to work. If A>B and B>C then A>C. B (your third frame) is irrelevant since all that matters here is A>C. And no, direction is irrelevant as I have said before. Consider the following diagram:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Notice that direction of travel has no bearing on the fact that the traveling twin traversed a total distance of ct regardless of leaving (interestingly marked in blue) or returning (and this is marked in red). All that matters is the magnitude of the slope in each case, not the sign (positive or negativc / receding or approaching). It just doesn't matter; a total of ct applies regardless of direction of the slope.

Yes, when the twin returns a day younger than her sister, she is "living in the past" according to the sedentary twin, whereas the she concludes the sedentary twin (and all sedentary people on Earth) are living in the future. Brian Greene simply came up with a clean way to propound this idea graphically. And notice, he did not need a third reference frame to explain this. Nor did Einstein, nor any of the early discoverers of relativity. (See the so-called Fitzeau Water Experiment).

So you see Brian Greene got it right, as did the early discoverers of modern physics.

 

Excellent. So now you agree that direction of travel is irrelevant.

 

The direction of time is pointing forward for both the alien on the bike and the person holding the stopwatch. But when the twin returns home a day younger than her sister, she is living in the past, relative to her twin. And everyone on Earth is living in the future, relative to her own clock. That's all Brian Greene is trying to explain. I thought it was a great explanation.

You can plan all you want, but the laws of nature can not be repealed by planning.

It goes as far as space goes. But it's a projection, which follows another law you haven't taken notice of: when a slant line crosses two orthogonal lines (axes), the angle of intersection relates to the projected segment as (slant length) x sin(angle) and the other projection is (slant length) x cos(angle). That's another law of nature you can't repeal by decree. And note, you would first have to go back and throw out all the experimental data, at least since Fitzeau, and then you still need to repeal all of the rest of the laws of geometry, as they will all fall under the fact that the stand together, or none of them stand at all. The whole house comes down since you are creating a new universe for them to apply to, not the one we live in.

 

The twin could travel in a circle and the outcome would be the same. So, what's with the big deal about which direction the alien rides the bicycle?

You seem to have so much confidence that trigonometry (a Euclidean space idea) has any relevance to relativistic space. I was taught the same thing. Large bits of it simply don't work. They don't work because of the origin problem. Nailing an origin to empty space doesn't make any sense. Nailing it to a Euclidean solid would make more sense if you are doing relativistic mechanics in the vicinity of a solid (unlikely), which is, by the way, the very opposite of a Euclidean solid because even the empty spaces between atoms may contract or not, depending on the motion of the observer.

I mastered trigonometry and calculus, the same as you did. I'm just not as gullible about the assumptions made and shortcuts taken so that you can do some half-assed dynamics based on Euclidean geometrical assumptions and call it 'physics'.

 

Proving that well worn-mantra ignorance is bliss !!! Somewhat related (owing to the notion of euphoria) Religion is the opiate of the people.

 

Just sidetracking from Aid's excellent post on the subject of this thread to something slightly askew of it and the "song and dance" being performed by the god.

Perhaps if I put it more simply and nicely for you......
The measurement of time takes on two concepts: [1] the time deduced from periodic motions of our close celestial neighbours [Earth/Moon/Sun]
A day, month and year are based on these motions and have been since time immemorable.
These units are variable due to periodic variations in the movements of planetary bodies, but are strictly adhered to, defined and adjusted accordingly.

[2] For sake of convenience, other units of time, such as second minute and hour were devised in Babylonian/Egyptian time.
The second was then accurately defined and based on the caesium atom as a base unit of time and fixed.
It's as simple as that.