Scroll to see replies
Original post by AlbertXY
Hello can you help me understand which clock and time is running slower?
Clock A - 1 cycle per second
Clock B - 2 cycles per second
Clock C - 3 cycles per second
Which time is a slower rate?
Clock A - 1 cycle per second
Clock B - 2 cycles per second
Clock C - 3 cycles per second
Which time is a slower rate?
C'mon.
Original post by Tootles
How long is a cycle at 1c/s? 2c/s? 3c/s?
C'mon.
C'mon.
What do you mean how long is a cycle?
Surely you mean how long is a second?
Original post by AlbertXY
What do you mean how long is a cycle?
Surely you mean how long is a second?
Surely you mean how long is a second?
Original post by Tootles
No, I have a definition for a second's length, and you have your lengths of each cycle.
I don't have a length of each cycle, each cycle is related to the speed of the cycle,
if you can imagine a single ''hand'' of a clock rotating at a speed around a clock face,
Clock A = 1 rotation per second
Clock b = 2 rotation per second
Clock c= 3 rotation per second
Now if these clocks were on different reference frames, (simultaneity) , I still do not know which clock represents time running slower, because the length of the second is a fixed constant.
Only if I ''cheat'' and shorten the length of a second for each different clock, could I get a result of time slowing down, which would still be a false result.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AlbertXY
I don't have a length of each cycle, each cycle is related to the speed of the cycle,
if you can imagine a single ''hand'' of a clock rotating at a speed around a clock face,
Clock A = 1 rotation per second
Clock b = 2 rotation per second
Clock c= 3 rotation per second
Now if these clocks were on different reference frames, (simultaneity) , I still do not know which clock represents time running slower, because the length of the second is a fixed constant.
Only if I ''cheat'' and shorten the length of a second for each different clock, could I get a result of time slowing down, which would still be a false result.
if you can imagine a single ''hand'' of a clock rotating at a speed around a clock face,
Clock A = 1 rotation per second
Clock b = 2 rotation per second
Clock c= 3 rotation per second
Now if these clocks were on different reference frames, (simultaneity) , I still do not know which clock represents time running slower, because the length of the second is a fixed constant.
Only if I ''cheat'' and shorten the length of a second for each different clock, could I get a result of time slowing down, which would still be a false result.
1c/s = 1s cycle.
2c/s = 0.5s cycle.
3c/s = 0.3's cycle.
Basic primary school mathematics, given the duration of 1s being a constant.
This being the case, you can't infer time flowing at different rates unless you want to start pissing about with relativity, and I'nt got time fo' dat.
If you know which clock is running at which rate, you can calculate the duration of each respective second easily enough using nuclear decay, using the same definition that that of the second uses.
[QUOTE=Tootles;66527046
This being the case, you can't infer time flowing at different rates
.
Yes , exactly that, no need to mess about with relativity because this shows relativity to be incorrect.
You cant infer time flows at different rates, if you shorten a second you in affect speed up the measurement . A clock finger takes less time to travel a shorter distance, half the distance, twice the speed.
Contracting distance is greater relative speed like two cars in a head on smash.
If both cars are travelling at 30 mph towards each other, the space between the cars contracts at 60 mph relatively.
This being the case, you can't infer time flowing at different rates
.
Yes , exactly that, no need to mess about with relativity because this shows relativity to be incorrect.
You cant infer time flows at different rates, if you shorten a second you in affect speed up the measurement . A clock finger takes less time to travel a shorter distance, half the distance, twice the speed.
Contracting distance is greater relative speed like two cars in a head on smash.
If both cars are travelling at 30 mph towards each other, the space between the cars contracts at 60 mph relatively.
Original post by AlbertXY
Hello can you help me understand which clock and time is running slower?
Clock A - 1 cycle per second
Clock B - 2 cycles per second
Clock C - 3 cycles per second
Which time is a slower rate?
Clock A - 1 cycle per second
Clock B - 2 cycles per second
Clock C - 3 cycles per second
Which time is a slower rate?
In the context of relativity, time dilation has a different sense to our every day time scale. We usually think of a clock running slower as passing a less time, but in relativity this is the exact opposite because time is measured by the stationary frame of reference with respect to other frames. So, in your examples, clock A would be running slower but the second must be our time of reference with respect to which other time are measured.
Original post by Absent Agent
In the context of relativity, time dilation has a different sense to our every day time scale. We usually think of a clock running slower as passing a less time, but in relativity this is the exact opposite because time is measured by the stationary frame of reference with respect to other frames. So, in your examples, clock A would be running slower but the second must be our time of reference with respect to which other time are measured.
In my example none of the clocks would be running slower, because per second remains a second.
1 cycle or two cycles a second does not alter the duration of the second.
For example and simplicity of numbers , let me define 10 cycles is equal to 1 second.
Now if we then measured 5 cycles, 5 cycles would be equal to 0.5 seconds,
If you was to shorten the length of something by half, you do not have a time dilation, you have half a second.
If you had 9192631770 cycles = 1 second and was to then get a different measurement of half that, time is not slowing down, the cycles are just slower than previous.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AlbertXY
In my example none of the clocks would be running slower, because per second remains a second.
1 cycle or two cycles a second does not alter the duration of the second.
For example and simplicity of numbers , let me define 10 cycles is equal to 1 second.
Now if we then measured 5 cycles, 5 cycles would be equal to 0.5 seconds,
If you was to shorten the length of something by half, you do not have a time dilation, you have half a second.
If you had 9192631770 cycles = 1 second and was to then get a different measurement of half that, time is not slowing down, the cycles are just slower than previous.
1 cycle or two cycles a second does not alter the duration of the second.
For example and simplicity of numbers , let me define 10 cycles is equal to 1 second.
Now if we then measured 5 cycles, 5 cycles would be equal to 0.5 seconds,
If you was to shorten the length of something by half, you do not have a time dilation, you have half a second.
If you had 9192631770 cycles = 1 second and was to then get a different measurement of half that, time is not slowing down, the cycles are just slower than previous.
That's only true when all the clocks are in one uniformly moving frame of reference. Time dilation is a consequence of the constancy of the speed of light in different reference frames.
Original post by Absent Agent
That's only true when all the clocks are in one uniformly moving frame of reference. Time dilation is a consequence of the constancy of the speed of light in different reference frames.
I do not understand why you are bringing the constant of light into this, the speed of light is not related to time?
Original post by AlbertXY
I do not understand why you are bringing the constant of light into this, the speed of light is not related to time?
Original post by AlbertXY
I do not understand why you are bringing the constant of light into this, the speed of light is not related to time?
I don't bring it, we should bring it. This is because since experiments found that the speed of life is constant regardless of how fast the source of light is moving, and that there is a direct relationship between speed, time, and distance, we need to incorporate the speed of light into uniformly-moving reference frames so as to derive the consequences in terms of time and distance for that reference frame with respect to an observant frame. In Einstein's own words;
"After seven years of reflection in vain ( 1898-1905), the solution came to me suddenly with the thought that our concepts of space and time can only claim validity insofar as they stand in a clear relation to our experiences; and that experience could very well lead to the alteration of these concepts and laws. By a revision of the concept of simultaneity into a more malleable form, I thus arrived at the special theory of relativity."
Original post by Absent Agent
I don't bring it, we should bring it. This is because since experiments found that the speed of life is constant regardless of how fast the source of light is moving, and that there is a direct relationship between speed, time, and distance, we need to incorporate the speed of light into uniformly-moving reference frames so as to derive the consequences in terms of time and distance for that reference frame with respect to an observant frame. In Einstein's own words;
"After seven years of reflection in vain ( 1898-1905), the solution came to me suddenly with the thought that our concepts of space and time can only claim validity insofar as they stand in a clear relation to our experiences; and that experience could very well lead to the alteration of these concepts and laws. By a revision of the concept of simultaneity into a more malleable form, I thus arrived at the special theory of relativity."
"After seven years of reflection in vain ( 1898-1905), the solution came to me suddenly with the thought that our concepts of space and time can only claim validity insofar as they stand in a clear relation to our experiences; and that experience could very well lead to the alteration of these concepts and laws. By a revision of the concept of simultaneity into a more malleable form, I thus arrived at the special theory of relativity."
After several years of harsh comments and finding ones own mind, the solution came to me over time rather than a sudden enlightenment. Einstein would have appreciated that time was like a ''rod'' , continuous with no spacing between the next increment.
A constant, that any attempt of measurement no matter how infinitesimally small or whatever the speed of measurement , would become an instantaneous increment of the length of history.
One could believe that one could travel faster than time, but one would be mistaken because time is always with the observer in the instance and can never be overtook, time can only be left behind in the form of history no matter what what the velocity of the observer is.
We simply can not define a constant of time then ignore its precedence altering the perspective of the constant by inferring time dilation ''illusions'' that do not exist in the state of reality.
Original post by mphysical
Is your argument this time, that time is not affected by speed.
No, but time is not affected by speed, do not mistake cycles which is a rate of something related to the caesium which is not related to time.
I am presently working on the relationship of magnetic field distortions of the magnets in the Caesium clock and the permitivity of the field strength being a possibility for the change in rate of the Caesium beam, but this is still unrelated to real time but rather a possible design flaw,
DO NOT MISTAKE A REPRESENTATION OF TIME IN BEING THE REAL DEAL OF TIME!
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AlbertXY
No, but time is not affected by speed, do not mistake cycles which is a rate of something related to the caesium which is not related to time.
I am presently working on the relationship of magnetic field distortions of the magnets in the Caesium clock and the permitivity of the field strength being a possibility for the change in rate of the Caesium beam, but this is still unrelated to real time but rather a possible design flaw,
DO NOT MISTAKE A REPRESENTATION OF TIME IN BEING THE REAL DEAL OF TIME!
I am presently working on the relationship of magnetic field distortions of the magnets in the Caesium clock and the permitivity of the field strength being a possibility for the change in rate of the Caesium beam, but this is still unrelated to real time but rather a possible design flaw,
DO NOT MISTAKE A REPRESENTATION OF TIME IN BEING THE REAL DEAL OF TIME!
The rest of your post I do not believe because I know you have no formal education in physics.
Oh my goodness not this again. You have already been informed in every other thread you have made about what we know, and you completely and irrationally reject any knowledge we present to you. Please stop.
Original post by mphysical
Time is affected by speed and I am not mistaking anything.
The rest of your post I do not believe because I know you have no formal education in physics.
The rest of your post I do not believe because I know you have no formal education in physics.
''Poppy cock'', you are clearly mistaken and trying to materialise time by the representation of time in the form of the Caesium cycles.
Admittedly I have no formal ''education'', but that does not inhibit my ability to consider ''things''.
There is clearly magnetic fields involved inside the Caesium clock, it is not hard to consider the possible affects of the Earths magnetic field on the field of the magnets in the clock. Clearly you do not understand magnetic field polarity and compass needles which tend to ''point'' a certain direction.
Original post by The-Spartan
Oh my goodness not this again. You have already been informed in every other thread you have made about what we know, and you completely and irrationally reject any knowledge we present to you. Please stop.
Try being objective and consider the knowledge I am explaining to you. STOP trying to dictate your theories to me which I already know, repetition of present theory does not answer my queries about the present theories.
(edited 7 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Vibrations study help please
- Geography GCSE help
- How do I go from 4s to 7/8s in GCSE Science?
- University lectures
- revision technique questions
- Alevel year 12 mocks
- Struggling with java programming
- Having a hard time finishing my assignment - Help
- Why do I only feel "normal" after a bad injury
- help in AQA a-level biology
- GCSEs
- Got a U in all my A level mocks, what do I do?
- A level chemistry
- Isaac physics quantum mechanics primer difficulty level
- I am new in y11
- Mental Health: Should I quit?
- gcse maths - those harder questions, maths gcse help needed
- Biology
- GCSE and EXAMS HELP
- Any revision tips/materials for Bio and maths?
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 9 minutes ago
University of Oxford 2025 Undergraduate Applicants Official ThreadPosted 37 minutes ago
Unit 3 Health and Social Care retake OCRLast reply 42 minutes ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 47 minutes ago
ATAS (Academic, Technology, Approval Scheme) Certificate 2023/2024Last reply 1 hour ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadPosted 1 hour ago
Failed 2 out of 3 exams semester 1 and scared about the 3 I have left in semester 2.Last reply 1 hour ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2927
Last reply 2 hours ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024
