Author 
Message 
Sue... science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:07 am Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



GSS wrote:
Quote:  I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
time.
Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
spatial dimension (L). The measure of time is the same in all reference
frames just as the universal coordinated time (UTC) or the TAI are
already accepted by the international scientific community. For
detailed presentation of this notion, kindly refer to,
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/time_measure.htm
GSS

Ugggh! Well... two outta three pieces ain't bad. )
<< Hence the Time, as a relative measure of change, is an
extremely important parameter in the study of an essentially
dynamic physical Universe. >>
Yes... but the relation to mass/energy demands more specifics
than you are offering. Near field potentials can *change* but
we don't sometimes don't note the passage of ~time~ 'till there
a mass/energy tranport occurs.
<< if we want to work out the potentials at position and time
then we have to perform integrals of the charge density and
current density over all space (just like in the steadystate
situation).
However, when we calculate the contribution of charges and
currents at position to these integrals we do not use the values
at time , instead we use the values at some earlier time . What
is this earlier time? It is simply the latest time at which a light
signal
emitted from position would be received at position before time .
This is called the retarded time. Likewise, the potentials (509)
and (510) are called retarded potentials. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Einstein erroneously applies this generally instead of in concert
with a coupling structure. (Presumeably, he only wanted to
deal with 'space' and its etheral or nonetheral properties) :(
Likewise, in GR the coupling structure is omitted. The mechanism
of an oscillating mass is implied as relating to time/energy
but it only receives formal devlopment when a theory of
relativity has to morph into a theory of invariance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
Still... you have quite a concise description of the problem.
I know time is a bit more physical than what you allude to
because when my foot gets heavy in traffic, I feel the
pain at the fuel pump. ;)
IOW
TIME is MORE than a Relative Measure of CHANGE
How about a title like:
TIME *as* a Relative Measure of CHANGE,
....respecting that time is an imaginary, with real consequences.
The enegy exchange in the oscillating pendulum is what is
missing. It will hard to work that in, while keeping the piece to
a reasonable length but you appear to have a special knack
for that.
Sue... 

Back to top 


GSS science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:02 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



Sue... wrote:
Quote:  GSS wrote:
I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
time.
Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
spatial dimension (L). The measure of time is the same in all reference
frames just as the universal coordinated time (UTC) or the TAI are
already accepted by the international scientific community. For
detailed presentation of this notion, kindly refer to,
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/time_measure.htm
GSS
Ugggh! Well... two outta three pieces ain't bad. )
Hence the Time, as a relative measure of change, is an
extremely important parameter in the study of an essentially
dynamic physical Universe.
Yes... but the relation to mass/energy demands more specifics
than you are offering. Near field potentials can *change* but
we don't sometimes don't note the passage of ~time~ 'till there
a mass/energy tranport occurs.
if we want to work out the potentials at position and time
then we have to perform integrals of the charge density and
current density over all space (just like in the steadystate
situation).
However, when we calculate the contribution of charges and
currents at position to these integrals we do not use the values
at time , instead we use the values at some earlier time . What
is this earlier time? It is simply the latest time at which a light
signal
emitted from position would be received at position before time .
This is called the retarded time. Likewise, the potentials (509)
and (510) are called retarded potentials.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Einstein erroneously applies this generally instead of in concert
with a coupling structure. (Presumeably, he only wanted to
deal with 'space' and its etheral or nonetheral properties) :(
Likewise, in GR the coupling structure is omitted. The mechanism
of an oscillating mass is implied as relating to time/energy
but it only receives formal devlopment when a theory of
relativity has to morph into a theory of invariance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
Still... you have quite a concise description of the problem.
I know time is a bit more physical than what you allude to
because when my foot gets heavy in traffic, I feel the
pain at the fuel pump. ;)
IOW
TIME is MORE than a Relative Measure of CHANGE
How about a title like:
TIME *as* a Relative Measure of CHANGE,
...respecting that time is an imaginary, with real consequences.
The enegy exchange in the oscillating pendulum is what is
missing. It will hard to work that in, while keeping the piece to
a reasonable length but you appear to have a special knack
for that.
Sue...

Yes I agree with you.
In essence "TIME is MORE than a Relative Measure of CHANGE"
Time is the essence of "the CHANGE".
Time is the essential feature of the "dynamic physical universe".
But what I have presented here is the notion of time measure. That is
how we quantify the time. That is when we say that one cycle of a
standard pendulum corresponds to N cycles of Cs133 hyperfine
transition resonance, we define the time measure.
GSS 

Back to top 


Mike1 science forum Guru
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 543

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



GSS wrote:
Quote:  I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
time.
Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
spatial dimension (L). The measure of time is the same in all reference
frames just as the universal coordinated time (UTC) or the TAI are
already accepted by the international scientific community. For
detailed presentation of this notion, kindly refer to,
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/time_measure.htm
GSS

You write:
"However, due to the over bearing dominance of mathematics during the
20th century, some Mathematicians have started propagating the idea of
equivalence of the dimensions of length (L) and time (T). "
Right from the start you exhibit a misunderstanding of the subject. I
did not read the rest that is. Nobody has ever proposed the
",,,equivalence of the dimensions of length (L) and time (T). "
Instead, space and time are treated in modern physics in the context of
a 4D continuum, what is called spacetime or spacetime.
Also, you seem to confuse various conceptions of time. There is time as
part of cognitive processes, time as an emotive concept and time as a
physical concept. Modern physics does not deal with neither the essence
of time nor its existence. These are subjects of a metaphysical
investigation of time. At most, physics deals with the concept of the
"arrow of time" and not how time arises and evolves.
You also write:
"In Relativity, the notion of spacetime continuum has been treated
as a physical entity.."
That is also not correct. Actually, relativity has been criticized by
some for NOT assigning to spacetime a physical existence. When you make
such statements, you ought to give some references to support the
point. I do not think you can find any reference to support your
misunderstandings.
Mike 

Back to top 


actionintegral@yahoo.com1 science forum beginner
Joined: 16 May 2006
Posts: 29

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



Quote:  ...respecting that time is an imaginary, with real consequences.
Sue...

I was scanning the original posting, looking for something interesting,
and I came
across this phrase of yours. What does it mean? 

Back to top 


Sue... science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:06 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



GSS wrote:
Quote:  Sue... wrote:
GSS wrote:
I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
time.
Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
spatial dimension (L). The measure of time is the same in all reference
frames just as the universal coordinated time (UTC) or the TAI are
already accepted by the international scientific community. For
detailed presentation of this notion, kindly refer to,
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/time_measure.htm
GSS
Ugggh! Well... two outta three pieces ain't bad. )
Hence the Time, as a relative measure of change, is an
extremely important parameter in the study of an essentially
dynamic physical Universe.
Yes... but the relation to mass/energy demands more specifics
than you are offering. Near field potentials can *change* but
we don't sometimes don't note the passage of ~time~ 'till there
a mass/energy tranport occurs.
if we want to work out the potentials at position and time
then we have to perform integrals of the charge density and
current density over all space (just like in the steadystate
situation).
However, when we calculate the contribution of charges and
currents at position to these integrals we do not use the values
at time , instead we use the values at some earlier time . What
is this earlier time? It is simply the latest time at which a light
signal
emitted from position would be received at position before time .
This is called the retarded time. Likewise, the potentials (509)
and (510) are called retarded potentials.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Einstein erroneously applies this generally instead of in concert
with a coupling structure. (Presumeably, he only wanted to
deal with 'space' and its etheral or nonetheral properties) :(
Likewise, in GR the coupling structure is omitted. The mechanism
of an oscillating mass is implied as relating to time/energy
but it only receives formal devlopment when a theory of
relativity has to morph into a theory of invariance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
Still... you have quite a concise description of the problem.
I know time is a bit more physical than what you allude to
because when my foot gets heavy in traffic, I feel the
pain at the fuel pump. ;)
IOW
TIME is MORE than a Relative Measure of CHANGE
How about a title like:
TIME *as* a Relative Measure of CHANGE,
...respecting that time is an imaginary, with real consequences.
The enegy exchange in the oscillating pendulum is what is
missing. It will hard to work that in, while keeping the piece to
a reasonable length but you appear to have a special knack
for that.
Sue...
Yes I agree with you.
In essence "TIME is MORE than a Relative Measure of CHANGE"
Time is the essence of "the CHANGE".
Time is the essential feature of the "dynamic physical universe".
But what I have presented here is the notion of time measure. That is
how we quantify the time. That is when we say that one cycle of a
standard pendulum corresponds to N cycles of Cs133 hyperfine
transition resonance, we define the time measure.
GSS

On a second read, I noticed you actually did use the phrase
time *as* a relative measure of change so my criticism is
is demoted to something of a spilling miss take. I'd fix the
title and save the keystrokes for a page that can focus
on the relationship between time and energy.
The way we quantify time is arbitrary but its physical
significance is not. Honest! The store where I buy
gasoline, charges me money for time when I try to
steal it with more agressive driving habits so I know
it must be real. )
IMHO... the page is squatting half way between metrology
and physics. Unfortunately, that seems to be the current
tactic to keep the dubious term 'time dilation' alive.
If you want to conclude with this statement:
<< In Relativity, the notion of spacetime continuum has
been treated as a physical entity, which could even be
deformed and curved!! Well, that is fundamentally
incompatible with the basic notion of Time as discussed
above. >>
....then it would be better if you take a purely metrologist
approach. A metrologist would say a drag race car uses
less fuel on a 20,000 km high course than at sea level
because his instruments are based on the cesium atom.
A physicist has to say the clock runs faster at at
20,000 km because there is no free lunch and no
free fuel. The PoundSnider experiment is consistant
with this POV.
(an auto mechanic would probably point out that all
bets are off when oscillating pistons try to shake
the earth and change tides and would win the argument)
In a contorted sort of way, mass energy equivalence
*is* representable by a curvature in the Lorenz gauge.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
....so it is the misinterpreters due the whipping, not
the technique of working in a special coordinate system
optimized for a purpose.
Sue...
"R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider,
Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance"
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.539
The more accurate measurement with Snider
"On the Interpretation of the Redshift in a Static Gravitational Field"
Authors: LB Okun (ITEP, Moscow), KG Selivanov
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017 

Back to top 


dda1 science forum Guru
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:07 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



GSS wrote:
<all imbecility snipped>
Self agrandizing word salad from persistent cretin Gurcharn Sandhu.
Many more such cretins like you in India? 

Back to top 


rotchm@gmail.com science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 111

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:08 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



Quote:  Still however, there is no unique definition of time.

That is one of the problems in physics. Depending in which field one is
working in, 'time' has a different (operational) definition...
Quote:  The most common definition may be taken as , 'Time is what we measure
by clocks all sorts of clocks'.

That is the common definition but not 'all sorts of clocks'. Only
clocks which are accepted as standard time measurements devices. The
cesium clock and stated (or assumed) equivalents. The pendulum clock is
not a 'clock' in the modern sence. We can use the pendulum clock to
describe laws of physics, but in such case, the laws will be written
differently. This is the case for SR and Galilean relativity: they both
use different definitions for 'clock' (time) and hence the equations of
physics are expressed differently, eg. Lorentz trans. and Galilean
trans.
Quote:  In Nature, there are a large number of physical processes, which undergo
cyclic changes. Depending on the consistency of such cyclic changes
and the convenience of their measurement...

Correct. And as you know, the official standard for 'second' or 'clock'
is the Cs clock. Calibrated equivalents are used to measure 'time', as
you point out...
Quote:  ...The motion of this particle can be represented as a helical trace in a XYT
coordinate space or manifold...
...XYZT does not physically exist anywhere at any time; it is just a mathematical notion...

Etc...Note that in highscholl textbooks and in Manifold theory, the
parameter 't' for 'time' does not have the same definition for 't' in
physics. In Differential geometry (&manifolds), the 't' is an arbitrary
parameter. The 'x' and 't' are independent variables. That is not the
case in physics. In physics, 'x' and 't' are not independent variables.
Actually, 'x' is defined as a function (operational definition) of
't',...of the reading of a clock.
Anyhow, I leave you with those thoughts...I will read on your pages in
due physical/mathematical/thermodynamical/psychological Time ;)

If you want to be sure, then always doubt.
} 

Back to top 


Sue... science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:28 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



actionintegral@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:  ...respecting that time is an imaginary, with real consequences.
Sue...
I was scanning the original posting, looking for something interesting,
and I came
across this phrase of yours. What does it mean?

Are you familiar with the trigononometric use of sqrt(1),
the imaginary operator. Many folks know its use as the
apparent power of an induction motor. We 'imagine' the
time is different when we measure current and voltage.
The real consequence is power is wasted in heating
wire resistance as this 'imaginary' time skew increases.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ComplexPlane.html
Exactly the same type of imaginary time is used in the
nearfield of EM coupling structures (light squirtere and catchers)
where free lunches are also pretty scarce.
<< when we calculate the contribution of charges and
currents at position to these integrals we do not use the
values at time , instead we use the values at some earlier
time . What is this earlier time? It is simply the latest time
at which a light signal emitted from position would be
received at position before time . This is called the
retarded time. Likewise, the potentials (509) and (510)
are called retarded potentials. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Sue... 

Back to top 


GSS science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:54 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



Mike wrote:
Quote:  GSS wrote:
I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
time.
Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
spatial dimension (L). The measure of time is the same in all reference
frames just as the universal coordinated time (UTC) or the TAI are
already accepted by the international scientific community. For
detailed presentation of this notion, kindly refer to,
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/time_measure.htm
GSS
You write:
"However, due to the over bearing dominance of mathematics during the
20th century, some Mathematicians have started propagating the idea of
equivalence of the dimensions of length (L) and time (T). "
Right from the start you exhibit a misunderstanding of the subject. I
did not read the rest that is. Nobody has ever proposed the
",,,equivalence of the dimensions of length (L) and time (T). "

There are many scientists here in these discussion forums, who insist
on advocating the use of so called natural units in Physics whereby
G=c=h=1. Do you want their names?
Quote:  Instead, space and time are treated in modern physics in the context of
a 4D continuum, what is called spacetime or spacetime.

It is OK to use the notion of a 4D continuum as long as you use it in
mathematical modeling. Secondly, even in a mathematical model you must
retain the 4D continuum as a 'continuum' and should not deform it into
a 'discontinuum'. But this is precisely what has been done in GR.
Kindly refer to,
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/invalidity_gr.pdf
GSS 

Back to top 


dda1 science forum Guru
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 7:24 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



GSS wrote:
<all s**t spouted by Gurcharn Sandhu snipped>
f*** off, get it? You are a shithead, Gurcharn Sandhu 

Back to top 


actionintegral@yahoo.com1 science forum beginner
Joined: 16 May 2006
Posts: 29

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:51 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



GSS wrote:
Quote:  Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
spatial dimension (L). The measure of time is the same in all reference
frames just as the universal coordinated time (UTC) or the TAI are
already accepted by the international scientific community.

Please forgive my lack of sophistication along these lines, but I am
here to learn!
In the link, I was unable to find any discussion of the notion of
"proper time"  pro or con. Therefore, I found nothing really counter
to what most people think of when they discuss "time". 

Back to top 


Sue... science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:30 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



actionintegral@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:  GSS wrote:
Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
spatial dimension (L). The measure of time is the same in all reference
frames just as the universal coordinated time (UTC) or the TAI are
already accepted by the international scientific community.
Please forgive my lack of sophistication along these lines, but I am
here to learn!
In the link, I was unable to find any discussion of the notion of
"proper time"  pro or con. Therefore, I found nothing really counter
to what most people think of when they discuss "time".

The use of proper time:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node114.html
....is rejected in the last paragraph.
<< In Relativity, the notion of spacetime continuum has
been treated as a physical entity, which could even be
deformed and curved!! Well, that is fundamentally
incompatible with the basic notion of Time as discussed
above. >>
The possibily of imaginary time to show a principle
of invariance is not developed so it doesn't seem an
oversight... IMHO
Sue... 

Back to top 


Bill Hobba science forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 2138

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:09 am Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150448853.540343.65660@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:  I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
time.
Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
spatial dimension (L).

That is how we model time. Physically time is what a clock reads where
clock is not even given an exact precise definition. If you want to go
further than that post on a philosophy forum. As to what a philosopher
thinks of it see
http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm
'Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is "time"? As
questions of physics these are going to be very different from similar
questions in philosophy. In physics, all one need say, to get started, is
that "mass resists acceleration" (intertial mass) or "mass exerts
gravitational attraction" (gravitational mass), that "distance is what we
measure with this rod," and that "time is what we measure with this clock."
Wow. These answers, of course, are not philosophically very satisfying. They
are all one needs, however, to start doing the science. And there is a
reason for that. Scientific explanations are logically only sufficient, not
necessary, to the phenomena. This means that they are enough to explain
something about what we are seeing, but that logically they are not the only
possible explanation and they do not explain everything about what we are
seeing. Indeed, explaining everything is a tall order, though it is what,
philosophically, we would like ultimately to have.'
Quote:  The measure of time is the same in all reference
frames

Experimentally refuted by for example experiments with atomic clocks on
planes.
Bill


Back to top 


Sue... science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 10:26 am Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



Bill Hobba wrote:
Quote:  "GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150448853.540343.65660@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
time.
Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
spatial dimension (L).
That is how we model time. Physically time is what a clock reads where
clock is not even given an exact precise definition. If you want to go
further than that post on a philosophy forum. As to what a philosopher
thinks of it see
http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm
'Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is "time"? As
questions of physics these are going to be very different from similar
questions in philosophy. In physics, all one need say, to get started, is
that "mass resists acceleration" (intertial mass) or "mass exerts
gravitational attraction" (gravitational mass), that "distance is what we
measure with this rod," and that "time is what we measure with this clock."
Wow. These answers, of course, are not philosophically very satisfying. They
are all one needs, however, to start doing the science. And there is a
reason for that. Scientific explanations are logically only sufficient, not
necessary, to the phenomena. This means that they are enough to explain
something about what we are seeing, but that logically they are not the only
possible explanation and they do not explain everything about what we are
seeing. Indeed, explaining everything is a tall order, though it is what,
philosophically, we would like ultimately to have.'
The measure of time is the same in all reference
frames
Experimentally refuted by for example experiments with atomic clocks on
planes.
Bill

I doubt the author will find much familiartiy with the cesium atom
in a philosophy forum. Instead of insults you might have offered
some background how the 'cyclic changes' referenced in his
piece can be related to subatomic mass that contributes
to the hyperfine transition and nuclear resonance and the
masses interaction with earth's gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfine_structure
R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on
Nuclear Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964).
[3] The more accurate measurement with Snider
....Ahhh but that might throw you off of your parroting script. :(
Sue...


Back to top 


GSS science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:36 pm Post subject:
Re: Notion of Time in Physics without Relativity



Bill Hobba wrote:
Quote:  "GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150448853.540343.65660@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I propose to discuss the broader viewpoint covering the fundamental
notions and concepts of Physics which will constitute the 'normally
accepted viewpoint' without Relativity. Let us begin with the notion of
time.
Time (T) is an absolute independent fundamental dimension, at par with
spatial dimension (L).
That is how we model time. Physically time is what a clock reads where
clock is not even given an exact precise definition. If you want to go
further than that post on a philosophy forum. As to what a philosopher
thinks of it see
http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm
'Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is "time"? As
questions of physics these are going to be very different from similar
questions in philosophy. In physics, all one need say, to get started, is
that "mass resists acceleration" (intertial mass) or "mass exerts
gravitational attraction" (gravitational mass), that "distance is what we
measure with this rod," and that "time is what we measure with this clock."
Wow. These answers, of course, are not philosophically very satisfying. They
are all one needs, however, to start doing the science. And there is a
reason for that. Scientific explanations are logically only sufficient, not
necessary, to the phenomena. This means that they are enough to explain
something about what we are seeing, but that logically they are not the only
possible explanation and they do not explain everything about what we are
seeing. Indeed, explaining everything is a tall order, though it is what,
philosophically, we would like ultimately to have.'
The measure of time is the same in all reference
frames
Experimentally refuted by for example experiments with atomic clocks on
planes.
Bill

Do you still believe that the measure of time changes in planes,
satellites and space ships? Just imagine the state of our world if the
measure of time were to be different in each train, each plane, each
satellite and each space craft!! On the other hand imagine how
convenient it is to have just one common measure of time UTC or TAI
through out our solar system and in all reference frames.
GSS 

Back to top 


Google


Back to top 



The time now is Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:12 pm  All times are GMT

