| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sam Wormley" |
| Date: |
19 Mar 2006 01:49:59 PM |
| Object: |
Time Too Good to Be True |
Time Too Good to Be True
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
Without wishing to cause unnecessary distress, I would like to call
attention to a couple of issues concerning time. The first is merely
calendraic but the second concerns the future of time itself.
The first issue is that we may have to say farewell to leap seconds.
Leap seconds, as you might recall, are the occasional one-second
adjustments of our clocks that are made to maintain harmony between
the astronomical and atomic time scales. Personally, I would be sorry
to see leap seconds go because that would cost me the pleasure of
mulling over the best way to spend my next one. Although a mere
second might seem to be too short to cause jubilation, I believe any
gift of time deserves to be treasured. Also, one second is not really
that short. It is long enough to record a few million high-energy
scattering events, and in femtosecond physics, one second is
virtually an eternity. Also, one second is sufficient for a word or
quick kiss that might change your life.
See: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
.
|
|
| User: "oriel36" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
21 Mar 2006 01:51:24 PM |
|
|
I enjoy promoting the correct working principles which highlight the
pretension of 'leap seconds'.
The 24 hour day is one of the greatest achievements of humanity and the
adaption of the pre-Copernican equable day to its helocentric setting
to axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours/360 degrees in
total is just a beautiful refinement of the original principles based
on the noon Equation of Time correction.
The leap second and its justification are just a dismal extension of
the calendrically driven clockwork system based on 3 years of 365 days
and 1 year of 366 days where a return of a star in 23 hours 56 min 04
sec continues regardless of whether it is a leap year or not.
http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/images/sidereal_day.gif
It all boils down to extracting axial and orbital motions from the
calendrically driven clockwork solar system, axial rotation for the 24
hour clock system and orbital motion to appreceate Copernican
heliocentricity and its later refinements.
The 24 hour clock system allied to terrestial longitudes is one of the
greatest Western astronomical achievements and even though the Equation
of Time principles have faded into the background,they still keep the
pace of clocks fixed to rotation at 1 degree every 4 minutes ,15
degrees per hour and 24 hours for one full rotation through 360
degrees.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
20 Mar 2006 11:20:39 PM |
|
|
Ill say it was.
Buy now us and all the other yachts are ,,shipping out.
The storm went ..
seas fair.
la blue , octoups , world , rising sun
world heads to solomon
dont know where anyone else is going.
leap frogging a few islands along the way .
The tu two sailed with us till lunch 1/2 hour ago.
5 other billionaires doing the same thing the 110 near or billionaires
on the world are going.
88 deg light rain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
19 Mar 2006 03:39:36 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:49:59 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Time Too Good to Be True
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
Without wishing to cause unnecessary distress, I would like to call
attention to a couple of issues concerning time. The first is merely
calendraic but the second concerns the future of time itself.
The first issue is that we may have to say farewell to leap seconds.
Leap seconds, as you might recall, are the occasional one-second
adjustments of our clocks that are made to maintain harmony between
the astronomical and atomic time scales. Personally, I would be sorry
to see leap seconds go because that would cost me the pleasure of
mulling over the best way to spend my next one. Although a mere
second might seem to be too short to cause jubilation, I believe any
gift of time deserves to be treasured. Also, one second is not really
that short. It is long enough to record a few million high-energy
scattering events, and in femtosecond physics, one second is
virtually an eternity. Also, one second is sufficient for a word or
quick kiss that might change your life.
See: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
I'll second that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Owlett" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
19 Mar 2006 02:22:03 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Time Too Good to Be True
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
Without wishing to cause unnecessary distress, I would like to call
attention to a couple of issues concerning time. The first is merely
calendraic but the second concerns the future of time itself.
The first issue is that we may have to say farewell to leap seconds.
Leap seconds, as you might recall, are the occasional one-second
adjustments of our clocks that are made to maintain harmony between
the astronomical and atomic time scales. Personally, I would be sorry
to see leap seconds go because that would cost me the pleasure of
mulling over the best way to spend my next one. Although a mere
second might seem to be too short to cause jubilation, I believe any
gift of time deserves to be treasured. Also, one second is not really
that short. It is long enough to record a few million high-energy
scattering events, and in femtosecond physics, one second is
virtually an eternity. Also, one second is sufficient for a word or
quick kiss that might change your life.
See: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
I do not know what to say.
That page was fascinating reading.
Doubt I grokked 10% of its implications.
thank you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
20 Mar 2006 05:43:52 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Time Too Good to Be True
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
Without wishing to cause unnecessary distress, I would like to call
attention to a couple of issues concerning time. The first is merely
calendraic but the second concerns the future of time itself.
The first issue is that we may have to say farewell to leap seconds.
Leap seconds, as you might recall, are the occasional one-second
adjustments of our clocks that are made to maintain harmony between
the astronomical and atomic time scales. Personally, I would be sorry
to see leap seconds go because that would cost me the pleasure of
mulling over the best way to spend my next one. Although a mere
second might seem to be too short to cause jubilation, I believe any
gift of time deserves to be treasured. Also, one second is not really
that short. It is long enough to record a few million high-energy
scattering events, and in femtosecond physics, one second is
virtually an eternity. Also, one second is sufficient for a word or
quick kiss that might change your life.
See: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
First, cool article.
Second, the discussion boils down to the concept of average
signal-to-noise ratio. Beyond a certain precision, the signal will be
swamped by the noise created by the various factors cited;
gravitational blue shift, tidal oscillations, plate tectonic motions,
compression/decompression of the earth's crust due to the affects of
water (e.g. Amazon basin) and glacial retreat/advance. EE's deal with
SNR all the time.
--Best regards,
--Mike Jr.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
20 Mar 2006 01:13:13 PM |
|
|
"Mike Jr." <n00spam@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1142855032.048462.128660@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sam Wormley wrote:
Time Too Good to Be True
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
Without wishing to cause unnecessary distress, I would like to call
attention to a couple of issues concerning time. The first is merely
calendraic but the second concerns the future of time itself.
The first issue is that we may have to say farewell to leap seconds.
Leap seconds, as you might recall, are the occasional one-second
adjustments of our clocks that are made to maintain harmony between
the astronomical and atomic time scales. Personally, I would be sorry
to see leap seconds go because that would cost me the pleasure of
mulling over the best way to spend my next one. Although a mere
second might seem to be too short to cause jubilation, I believe any
gift of time deserves to be treasured. Also, one second is not really
that short. It is long enough to record a few million high-energy
scattering events, and in femtosecond physics, one second is
virtually an eternity. Also, one second is sufficient for a word or
quick kiss that might change your life.
See: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
First, cool article.
Second, the discussion boils down to the concept of average
signal-to-noise ratio. Beyond a certain precision, the signal will be
swamped by the noise created by the various factors cited;
gravitational blue shift, tidal oscillations, plate tectonic motions,
compression/decompression of the earth's crust due to the affects of
water (e.g. Amazon basin) and glacial retreat/advance. EE's deal with
SNR all the time.
The problem described is more fundamental than that. In relativity
proper time is different for every worldline. In other words every
object has its own 'personal' time. There is no such thing as a
'real' or universal time. With current clock accuracy we need to
take relativity into account for things like the GPS system but it
is still possible to define a universal time (UTC or IAT for example)
that is valid for people on the Earth's surface. For all practical
and measurable purposes there is still therefore the concept of
'what time is it?'. The article pointed out that as we consider this
question in greater accuracy that question ceases to have any
meaning. Theoretical physicists have known this for years but
soon it may have practical significance.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
20 Mar 2006 10:02:13 PM |
|
|
Martin Hogbin wrote:
"Mike Jr." <n00spam@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1142855032.048462.128660@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sam Wormley wrote:
Time Too Good to Be True
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
Without wishing to cause unnecessary distress, I would like to call
attention to a couple of issues concerning time. The first is merely
calendraic but the second concerns the future of time itself.
The first issue is that we may have to say farewell to leap seconds.
Leap seconds, as you might recall, are the occasional one-second
adjustments of our clocks that are made to maintain harmony between
the astronomical and atomic time scales. Personally, I would be sorry
to see leap seconds go because that would cost me the pleasure of
mulling over the best way to spend my next one. Although a mere
second might seem to be too short to cause jubilation, I believe any
gift of time deserves to be treasured. Also, one second is not really
that short. It is long enough to record a few million high-energy
scattering events, and in femtosecond physics, one second is
virtually an eternity. Also, one second is sufficient for a word or
quick kiss that might change your life.
See: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
First, cool article.
Second, the discussion boils down to the concept of average
signal-to-noise ratio. Beyond a certain precision, the signal will be
swamped by the noise created by the various factors cited;
gravitational blue shift, tidal oscillations, plate tectonic motions,
compression/decompression of the earth's crust due to the affects of
water (e.g. Amazon basin) and glacial retreat/advance. EE's deal with
SNR all the time.
The problem described is more fundamental than that. In relativity
proper time is different for every worldline. In other words every
object has its own 'personal' time. There is no such thing as a
'real' or universal time. With current clock accuracy we need to
take relativity into account for things like the GPS system but it
is still possible to define a universal time (UTC or IAT for example)
that is valid for people on the Earth's surface. For all practical
and measurable purposes there is still therefore the concept of
'what time is it?'. The article pointed out that as we consider this
question in greater accuracy that question ceases to have any
meaning. Theoretical physicists have known this for years but
soon it may have practical significance.
Martin Hogbin
Martin,
If your atomic clock was in deep space, far from any perturbing
matter, you could push the accurracy much further. But the earth is a
pretty noisy place.
Even in deep space you would have to come up against a limit. How far
down could you push it?
To your point about UTC vs. individual world lines you should, in
principle, be able to compute coordinate transformations bewteen any
two such world lines. Sort of an adjustable UTC.
--Mike Jr.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
21 Mar 2006 05:10:40 PM |
|
|
"Mike Jr." <n00spam@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1142913733.800836.291780@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Martin Hogbin wrote:
The problem described is more fundamental than that. In relativity
proper time is different for every worldline. In other words every
object has its own 'personal' time. There is no such thing as a
'real' or universal time. With current clock accuracy we need to
take relativity into account for things like the GPS system but it
is still possible to define a universal time (UTC or IAT for example)
that is valid for people on the Earth's surface. For all practical
and measurable purposes there is still therefore the concept of
'what time is it?'. The article pointed out that as we consider this
question in greater accuracy that question ceases to have any
meaning. Theoretical physicists have known this for years but
soon it may have practical significance.
If your atomic clock was in deep space, far from any perturbing
matter, you could push the accurracy much further. But the earth is a
pretty noisy place.
Sure, but this is not what i take to be the main point of the article.
Even in deep space you would have to come up against a limit. How far
down could you push it?
To your point about UTC vs. individual world lines you should, in
principle, be able to compute coordinate transformations bewteen any
two such world lines. Sort of an adjustable UTC.
Yes, but the point about UTC is that it is universal (for objects fixed
on the Earth's surface). When we go to greater accuracy this breaks
down, even for fixed clocks. We can no longer ask, 'What time is it?',
only, 'How old am I?'.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
21 Mar 2006 08:50:07 PM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:dvq15g$h2n$2@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
|
| "Mike Jr." <n00spam@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1142913733.800836.291780@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > Martin Hogbin wrote:
| > >
| > > The problem described is more fundamental than that. In relativity
| > > proper time is different for every worldline. In other words every
| > > object has its own 'personal' time. There is no such thing as a
| > > 'real' or universal time. With current clock accuracy we need to
| > > take relativity into account for things like the GPS system but it
| > > is still possible to define a universal time (UTC or IAT for example)
| > > that is valid for people on the Earth's surface. For all practical
| > > and measurable purposes there is still therefore the concept of
| > > 'what time is it?'. The article pointed out that as we consider this
| > > question in greater accuracy that question ceases to have any
| > > meaning. Theoretical physicists have known this for years but
| > > soon it may have practical significance.
|
| > If your atomic clock was in deep space, far from any perturbing
| > matter, you could push the accurracy much further. But the earth is a
| > pretty noisy place.
|
| Sure, but this is not what i take to be the main point of the article.
|
| > Even in deep space you would have to come up against a limit. How far
| > down could you push it?
| >
| > To your point about UTC vs. individual world lines you should, in
| > principle, be able to compute coordinate transformations bewteen any
| > two such world lines. Sort of an adjustable UTC.
|
| Yes, but the point about UTC is that it is universal (for objects fixed
| on the Earth's surface).
Cassini uses UTC.
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
What are you, fucking drunk or still taking your stupidity pills?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
22 Mar 2006 03:34:22 AM |
|
|
"Hexenmeister" <vanquish@broom.Mickey> wrote in message news:zX2Uf.259621$YJ4.25258@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
|
| Yes, but the point about UTC is that it is universal (for objects fixed
| on the Earth's surface).
Cassini uses UTC.
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
What are you, fucking drunk or still taking your stupidity pills?
Go away, this a real discussion.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
22 Mar 2006 12:32:18 PM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:dvr5mu$isp$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
|
| "Hexenmeister" <vanquish@broom.Mickey> wrote in message
news:zX2Uf.259621$YJ4.25258@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
| > |
| > | Yes, but the point about UTC is that it is universal (for objects
fixed
| > | on the Earth's surface).
| >
| > Cassini uses UTC.
| > http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
| >
| > What are you, fucking drunk or still taking your stupidity pills?
|
| Go away, this a real discussion.
"Real has nothing to do with it" -- Humpty Roberts.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. |
22 Mar 2006 09:25:35 PM |
|
|
Hi Martin_Hogbin, Mike_Jr and Martin_Hogbin, Techies have a saying:
The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
Same goes for time standards.
Just pick the one that suits you best, here and now.
All meaning is local, the rest is inane.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. |
23 Mar 2006 07:31:03 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_22_cqZ1@Cotse.NET...
Hi Martin_Hogbin, Mike_Jr and Martin_Hogbin, Techies have a saying:
The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
Same goes for time standards.
Just pick the one that suits you best, here and now.
All meaning is local, the rest is inane.
There are many to choose from, yet you seem to ignore most of them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
21 Mar 2006 04:33:26 PM |
|
|
Martin Hogbin wrote:
The problem described is more fundamental than that. In relativity
proper time is different for every worldline. In other words every
object has its own 'personal' time.
[...] The article pointed out that as we consider this
question in greater accuracy that question ceases to have any
meaning.
UTC and TAI will always be meaningful as coordinate times even if the proper
length of a UTC/TAI second varies with location and speed. I thought they
were defined as coordinate times from the beginning, but I can't find any
information about it on the web.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
21 Mar 2006 08:54:18 PM |
|
|
"Ben Rudiak-Gould" <br276deleteme@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dvpv08$leu$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
| Martin Hogbin wrote:
| > The problem described is more fundamental than that. In relativity
| > proper time is different for every worldline. In other words every
| > object has its own 'personal' time.
| > [...] The article pointed out that as we consider this
| > question in greater accuracy that question ceases to have any
| > meaning.
|
| UTC and TAI will always be meaningful as coordinate times even if the
proper
| length of a UTC/TAI second varies with location and speed. I thought they
| were defined as coordinate times from the beginning, but I can't find any
| information about it on the web.
|
| -- Ben
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
Dork Van de merde squawked in
news:tj_Jf.266785$nR7.8083486@phobos.telenet-ops.be
on 19 Feb 2006 (historic occasion):
" Polly want a kwacker
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the
radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
Polly want a kwacker"
-- Dirk Vdm
For the first time in his life he didn't mumble "time is what a clock says"
or try to tie it to the velocity of radiation, but to the count.
Give him his cracker.
As a matter of interest, the velocity of said radiation in a vacuum is
299,792.4562 kilometers per 9192631770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels
of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom, plus or minus 1.1 meters per
9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition
between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium
133 atom.
Thus the distance corresponding to one transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom is
32.61225552 millimetres or 1.283947068 inches (+/- an atom width).
Moving the atom at 32.61225552 millimetres per transition makes the
transitions stop if you swallow Einstein's ***** as the parrot does,
and the atom cannot be moved any faster relative to an aether soup.
In fact, everyone knows the viscosity of aether is like axle grease at 40
below, which clogs the fine clockwork of the caesium atom and
prevents ticking, which is why time slows down the faster you go.
Experimental evidence suggests there is no known cure for stupidity.
This is particularly true for those that imagine mathematics can
cause physics to happen the way they want it to.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
22 Mar 2006 03:36:31 AM |
|
|
"Hexenmeister" <vanquish@broom.Mickey> wrote in message news:u%2Uf.259622$YJ4.27800@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
In fact, everyone knows the viscosity of aether is like axle grease at 40
below, which clogs the fine clockwork of the caesium atom and
prevents ticking, which is why time slows down the faster you go.
One for you site Dirk.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
22 Mar 2006 10:35:46 AM |
|
|
dark enegy is not ether .
photons dont combine or have resistance.
Re: Constant Light Speed
Group: sci.physics Date: Wed, Mar 22, 2006, 1:09am From:
GravityPhysics@webtv.net (tj=A0Frazir)
=A0=A03 mph photons are stupid.
=A0=A0You get a macht to burn for 10,000 years ? or if light was 12000 c
the energy exchanged with an atom =A0 would smash
it.
=A0TIME DONT CHANGE
=A0c is constant.
=A0=A0no two points in space move or are at the same time . POST HOLE
DIGGER of a captain
=A0=A0Dark energy is the light from any star outside this visible
universe at c with no wavelength at constant frequency ep.
=A0=A0Whats the orbit of the electon drawn as a line thew space spacy
..in
motion ??
=A0=A0=A0=A0They are circles side by side overlapped near 97 % . evy
object in motion is slow nect to this orbit. =A0=A0even as the object in
motion moves the electon and all the atoms parts are orbiting at c.
=A0=A0not even an object in motion can go faster then the parts in
orbit. The only reason its in motion at all is the facct the orbit is
warped. ALL the obits change befor anything can move. The center of mass
( all the parts in orbit ) and the center of G are not at the same point
in an eliptical orbit. =A0=A0=A0=A0F is identical to the distance from
the center of mass to the center of gravity.
no exceptions to the rule ever.
=A0=A0Because of G the mass moves NO exceptions to that rule. emf can
change the orbit ,,but that changed the center of mass and is coverd by
the rule.
=A0=A0Evry atom of the moon is effected by the earths G . Evyy part in
evy
atom has its orbit effected by the earths G. =A0=A0back to tha line from
the atom as it moves as if it starts then stops as the electon orbits we
draw a line in space as the object moves. =A0=A0The faster you go wrt
from us the less circles are in an inch of travel.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Its not like its
moving at all when you put 1 circle ( photon ) on any circle. =A0=A0How
much circle is not overlapped within G is jected. Motion is just a
change in this energy exchanged when the atom is the circle.
=A0Only the part of the circle ( photon )
that is near enouph to G will orbit G and the rest is too far away from
G .
=A0=A0As we toss a circle ( photon ) onto the circle atom as it stacks
circles in space in motion.
=A0=A0NO atoms ae not in motion.
Hubble and conservation wont alow a non expanding universe. no two
points are the same time.
Time dont move and c is constant.
=A0Thats coect that TIME dont change .
spacy BUT c dont change because TIME is the ate energy reacts with
energy.
=A0=A0To unplug yer brain eve more...
besides the fct wavelength X fequency equals c evry time... THE energy
exchange =8D=B2 equals G spacy.
c is constant or V would change the BEND around a big star OR any atom.
=A0=A0AND THEN HOW SLOW IS SLOWER ??
=A0=A0no photons ae going past you at 4 mph or even 1 billion mps. TIME
DONT CHANGE spacy ......
so then the time a photon ejects is c .
NOW its at c evywheeeerrrrrrreeeeee
spacy EVEN 20 billion light years away.
=A0=A0BUT 13.7 BILLION LIGHT YEARS away the STAR is going away AT c ..
IT will eject a photon at a point in space that DONT MOVE and TIME DONT
CHANGE .
the star is gone past the point that photon left but that point where it
left DONT MOVE.
=A0=A0Clock the time that photon left that star from where you are. Its
a strait line 1/4 inch long.
=A0=A0The photon left the atom from a point smaller then the atom.....
SO TIME is allso the rise and fall in enegy. wrt you ,,where it is in a
diferant time. AND photons dont get rammed together in space. Photons
are GODS
division where dark enegy is GODS active force. ALL THE photons that
left that star at te edge of this visible Hubble Limit pass us at c.
=A0=A0The point the photon left the star dont move and left it at c .
The same as any atom.
=A0=A0BUT as we see the stars ae going away fom each other at the same
speed
=A0=A0They all go away from us faster the farther they are away. BUT the
point the photon left dont move and TIME is constant and c is constant.
=A0=A0WE are moving twards the point that dont move ........... from
stars
20,000 billion light years away .
=A0=A0=A0=A0Matter is all the same stuff ..energy. All its parts are a
rise in energy .
=A0=A0Thier motion cuts a void in dark energy. As they cut a void it
closes in ,,is dark matter.
=A0=A0G is the low energy as dark energy is displaced. G combines the
low of all the energy in motion cuting the void . =A0=A0ALL the paticals
or WAVICALS orbit the G they all contibute to . The only diferance
between any of the parts is how much energy it is . How much energy it
contains is how it will react and how much low and rise it is.
=A0=A0Too much mass cant excape G.
Too little mass will excape G.
c is constant and NONE of the parts can change speed. =A0 They cant
change speed so they change orbit or ject when they change mass. or
energy.
=A0=A0nice swells ,,7 pm local time windy 22 knots 3 days to cook island
,,2 to solomon
=A0=A0we have not decided ,,planing around the sky
.
|
|
|
| User: "CrankHater" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
22 Mar 2006 10:54:43 AM |
|
|
tj Frazir wrote:
dark enegy is not ether .
photons dont combine or have resistance.
well said dickwad. why you bothered with the rest of the post is beyond
me.
FOAD.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
21 Mar 2006 05:10:40 PM |
|
|
"Ben Rudiak-Gould" <br276deleteme@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:dvpv08$leu$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
Martin Hogbin wrote:
The problem described is more fundamental than that. In relativity
proper time is different for every worldline. In other words every
object has its own 'personal' time.
[...] The article pointed out that as we consider this
question in greater accuracy that question ceases to have any
meaning.
UTC and TAI will always be meaningful as coordinate times even if the proper
length of a UTC/TAI second varies with location and speed.
That was really my point. Perhaps 'meaning' was not the right word,
something like 'validity' might have been better. Or pehaps I should
have said that the question 'What time is it?' will cease to have any meaning.
I thought they
were defined as coordinate times from the beginning, but I can't find any
information about it on the web.
No doubt that is true but to a good accuracy the correspond with proper
times for objects on the Earth's surface.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
21 Mar 2006 11:40:07 PM |
|
|
The BB cant happen.
No two points are the same time.
This universe is 1 tillion times farther then the hubble constant.
evry 14 billion years time colides with time.
Re: Constant Light Speed
Group: sci.physics Date: Tue, Mar 21, 2006, 11:21pm From:
GravityPhysics@webtv.net (tj=A0Frazir)
=A0=A0Whats the orbit of the electon drawn as a line thew space spacy
...in
motion ??
=A0=A0=A0=A0They are circles side by side overlapped near 97 % . evy
object in motion is slow nect to this orbit.
=A0=A0even as the object in motion moves the electon and all the atoms
parts are orbiting at c.
=A0=A0not even an object in motion can go faster then the parts in
orbit. The only reason its in motion at all is the facct the orbit is
warped. ALL the obits change befor anything can move.
The center of mass ( all the parts in orbit ) and the center of G are
not at the same point in an eliptical orbit.
=A0=A0=A0=A0F is identical to the distance from the center of mass to
the center of gravity.
no exceptions to the rule ever.
=A0=A0Because of G the mass moves NO exceptions to that rule. emf can
change the orbit ,,but that changed the center of mass and is
coverd by the rule.
=A0=A0Evry atom of the moon is effected by the earths G . Evyy part in
evy
atom has its orbit effected by the earths G.
=A0=A0back to tha line from the atom as it moves as if it starts then
stops as the electon orbits we draw a line in space as the object moves.
=A0=A0The faster you go wrt from us the less circles are in an inch of
travel.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Its not like its
moving at all when you put 1 circle ( photon ) on any circle.
=A0=A0How much circle is not overlapped within G is jected. Motion is
just a change in this energy exchanged when the atom is the
circle.
=A0Only the part of the circle ( photon )
that is near enouph to G will orbit G and the rest is too far away from
G .
=A0=A0As we toss a circle ( photon ) onto the circle atom as it stacks
circles in space in motion.
=A0=A0NO atoms ae not in motion.
Hubble and conservation wont alow a non expanding universe. no two
points are the same time.
Time dont move and c is constant.
=A0Thats coect that TIME dont change .
spacy BUT c dont change because TIME is the ate energy reacts with
energy.
=A0=A0To unplug yer brain eve more...
besides the fct wavelength X fequency equals c evry time... THE energy
exchange =8D=B2 equals G spacy.
c is constant or V would change the BEND around a big star OR any atom.
=A0=A0AND THEN HOW SLOW IS SLOWER ??
=A0=A0no photons ae going past you at 4 mph or even 1 billion mps. TIME
DONT CHANGE spacy ......
so then the time a photon ejects is c .
NOW its at c evywheeeerrrrrrreeeeee
spacy EVEN 20 billion light years away.
=A0=A0BUT 13.7 BILLION LIGHT YEARS away the STAR is going away AT c ..
IT will eject a photon at a point in space that DONT MOVE and TIME DONT
CHANGE .
the star is gone past the point that photon left but that point where it
left DONT MOVE.
=A0=A0Clock the time that photon left that star from where you are. Its
a strait line 1/4 inch long.
=A0=A0The photon left the atom from a point smaller then the atom.....
SO TIME is allso the rise and fall in enegy. wrt you ,,where it is in a
diferant time. AND photons dont get rammed together in space. Photons
are GODS
division where dark enegy is GODS active force. ALL THE photons that
left that star at te edge of this visible Hubble
Limit pass us at c.
=A0=A0The point the photon left the star dont move and left it at c .
The same as any atom.
=A0=A0BUT as we see the stars ae going away fom each other at the same
speed
=A0=A0They all go away from us faster the farther they are away. BUT the
point the photon left dont move and TIME is constant and c is
constant.
=A0=A0WE are moving twards the point that dont move ........... from
stars
20,000 billion light years away .
=A0=A0=A0=A0Matter is all the same stuff ..energy.
All its parts are a rise in energy .
=A0=A0Thier motion cuts a void in dark energy. As they cut a void it
closes in ,,is dark matter.
=A0=A0G is the low energy as dark energy is displaced. G combines the
low of all the energy in motion cuting the void .
=A0=A0ALL the paticals or WAVICALS orbit the G they all contibute to .
The only diferance between any of the parts is how much energy it is .
How much energy it contains is how it will react and how much low and
rise it is.
=A0=A0Too much mass cant excape G.
Too little mass will excape G.
c is constant and NONE of the parts can change speed. =A0 They cant
change speed so they change orbit or ject when they change mass. or
energy.
=A0=A0nice swells ,,7 pm local time windy 22 knots 3 days to cook island
,,2 to solomon
=A0=A0we have not decided ,,planing around the sky
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "oriel36" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
22 Mar 2006 12:10:08 PM |
|
|
To BEN
Do you understand what "Very Large Oversight " means.
It means that the way the pre-Copernican equable 24 hour day transfers
to it heliocentric adaption to axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour
while still retaining the Equation of Time correction assures that
there is no means to sever the ties between the pace of a clock
hour,minute,second or any further subdivision fromn the rotation of the
Earth.
The 'Leap' freaks are symptoms of those who never fully grasped that
the sidereal value on which 'leap' corrections are based has a very
long qualification to it -
The return of a star in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec is based approximately
on a 1461 day cycle for homogenised axial and orbital motion that
cannoit be justified in any shape or form.
Western civilisation might destroy itself due to the intellectual
cancer that eats it from the inside but if another cuivilisation
emerges it will surely be shocked at the simple error to snowballed
into an empirical monster with nobody around to stem the illness never
mind get oin the road to recovery.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
20 Mar 2006 08:27:22 AM |
|
|
Mike Jr. wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Time Too Good to Be True
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
Without wishing to cause unnecessary distress, I would like to call
attention to a couple of issues concerning time. The first is merely
calendraic but the second concerns the future of time itself.
The first issue is that we may have to say farewell to leap seconds.
Leap seconds, as you might recall, are the occasional one-second
adjustments of our clocks that are made to maintain harmony between
the astronomical and atomic time scales. Personally, I would be sorry
to see leap seconds go because that would cost me the pleasure of
mulling over the best way to spend my next one. Although a mere
second might seem to be too short to cause jubilation, I believe any
gift of time deserves to be treasured. Also, one second is not really
that short. It is long enough to record a few million high-energy
scattering events, and in femtosecond physics, one second is
virtually an eternity. Also, one second is sufficient for a word or
quick kiss that might change your life.
See: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
First, cool article.
Second, the discussion boils down to the concept of average
signal-to-noise ratio. Beyond a certain precision, the signal will be
swamped by the noise created by the various factors cited;
gravitational blue shift, tidal oscillations, plate tectonic motions,
compression/decompression of the earth's crust due to the affects of
water (e.g. Amazon basin) and glacial retreat/advance. EE's deal with
SNR all the time.
--Best regards,
--Mike Jr.
Once the clocks becomes the "lowest noise" standard reference, then
the other observables, i.e., Geoid, altitude, horizontal shift, etc.
can be deduced from the clocks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
20 Mar 2006 10:14:30 PM |
|
|
Sam,
GPS is designed to do this now. The positions of the monitoring
stations are very well known. So at the MS you measure your position
and compute an error. This allows you to reverse engineer the bird's
position. GPS has to model the geoid very closely. The Geoid is
factored into the Kalman-Filter's ephemeris predictions.
To your point, when the clocks hit their lower limit, we will be able
to do this with more accuracy.
BTW, I wonder what technology will replace atomic clocks ....
--Mike Jr.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Erbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
21 Mar 2006 07:47:57 AM |
|
|
Mike Jr. wrote:
BTW, I wonder what technology will replace atomic clocks ....
A strip of cloth soaked in potassium, dried, and with carefully spaced
knots. When it is lighted it smolders at an even one knot every hour
rate. The concept was developed by Alexander the Great and he used it
to coordinate the timing of attacks by his forces from several
directions. Do you know what he called it?
(drum roll here)
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
Alexander's Rag Time Band!
(rim shot here)
Jack
--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA - jackerbes at adelphia dot net
(also receiving email at jacker at midmaine.com)
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
21 Mar 2006 09:04:34 AM |
|
|
More junk coruot sci fi crap for Sam-so-nite
Skip the whole milk. Pass on soda. Drink beer? - Diet & Fitness -
MSNBC.com
Address:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7279844/did/11735125?GT1=7850
Sam belives evryone and evrything paid to say so.
the dumbfuckingchucleheadshould love this
Skip the whole milk. Pass on soda. Drink beer? - Diet & Fitness -
MSNBC.com
Address:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7279844/did/11735125?GT1=7850
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
20 Mar 2006 10:35:53 PM |
|
|
Mike Jr. wrote:
Sam,
GPS is designed to do this now. The positions of the monitoring
stations are very well known. So at the MS you measure your position
and compute an error. This allows you to reverse engineer the bird's
position. GPS has to model the geoid very closely. The Geoid is
factored into the Kalman-Filter's ephemeris predictions.
To your point, when the clocks hit their lower limit, we will be able
to do this with more accuracy.
BTW, I wonder what technology will replace atomic clocks ....
--Mike Jr.
Light clocks...
.
|
|
|
| User: "gomez" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
21 Mar 2006 09:22:31 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 04:35:53 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
dropped the following oil-slick:
Mike Jr. wrote:
Sam,
GPS is designed to do this now. The positions of the monitoring
stations are very well known. So at the MS you measure your position
and compute an error. This allows you to reverse engineer the bird's
position. GPS has to model the geoid very closely. The Geoid is
factored into the Kalman-Filter's ephemeris predictions.
To your point, when the clocks hit their lower limit, we will be able
to do this with more accuracy.
BTW, I wonder what technology will replace atomic clocks ....
--Mike Jr.
Light clocks...
How do see those working given that the speed of light may not be
constant after all?
--
gomez
Honda TransAlp,KTM 640LC Enduro (For Sale)
(not is hot to reply)
"The best tool for the job is the hammer thats nearest to hand"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
21 Mar 2006 09:31:37 AM |
|
|
gomez wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 04:35:53 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
dropped the following oil-slick:
Mike Jr. wrote:
Sam,
GPS is designed to do this now. The positions of the monitoring
stations are very well known. So at the MS you measure your position
and compute an error. This allows you to reverse engineer the bird's
position. GPS has to model the geoid very closely. The Geoid is
factored into the Kalman-Filter's ephemeris predictions.
To your point, when the clocks hit their lower limit, we will be able
to do this with more accuracy.
BTW, I wonder what technology will replace atomic clocks ....
--Mike Jr.
Light clocks...
How do see those working given that the speed of light may not be
constant after all?
The speed of light is constant for all observers. Light clocks will
tic at different rates for different observers, just as all clocks do.
The only difference is that light clock will likely achieve accuracy
is the range of one part in 10^18.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
22 Mar 2006 04:35:27 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Time Too Good to Be True
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
[snip]
gift of time deserves to be treasured. Also, one second is not really
that short. It is long enough to record a few million high-energy
scattering events, and in femtosecond physics, one second is
virtually an eternity. Also, one second is sufficient for a word or
quick kiss that might change your life.
Interesting thread, however I realized that I just wasted more than
a lifetime's worth of leap seconds reading through it, so the question
of what to do with my extra seconds is now moot.
~ Coug
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
22 Mar 2006 08:10:19 PM |
|
|
A good place for crankhate head would be under my foot...BUT why ***** my
shoes after YOUR HEADS BEEN UP YOUR ***** YOUR WHOLE LIFE
MORON ...you dont have the IQ to understand
and your the kind of dumbass thaat stays a dumbass
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Too Good to Be True |
19 Mar 2006 02:58:07 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
[...] Personally, I would be sorry
to see leap seconds go because that would cost me the pleasure of
mulling over the best way to spend my next one. Although a mere
second might seem to be too short to cause jubilation, I believe any
gift of time deserves to be treasured.
Leap seconds are slowly killing us. Every leap second they introduce makes
the exact time of your death fall one second earlier. Man, I wish I'd been
around during the switch from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar. Ten
whole extra days of life! I don't understand those people who thought they'd
lost ten days.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
