My goodness,it seems so long ago since you first introduced the
passage from the Principia into the discussion and while I have moved
on and expanded on the subject beyond all recognition you now would
not dare discuss Newton's absolute/relative time definition like you
did years ago,I guess the progress can be gauged now by what you,as a
relativist, can and cannot discuss and this is the price of
intellectual slavery.

You forget that I did not set out to disprove or prove anything and
the trajectory of postings from years ago is the true means by which
material and topics evolve.Again,I can point out that I geometrically
explained the appearance of the supernova rings in 1990,long before
the images emerged in 1994 and I assure you that work has quite a bit
in common with the present topic of geometry,clocks and astronomy.

You have the advantage that nobody at present associates
absolute/relative time with the EoT and this says more of the poor
intellectual atmosphere than it does true opposition and I alone
remain confident that eventually Newton's purpose and intent of
absolute/relative time,space and motion will be rediscovered as the
development of accurate clocks for measuring distance was
rediscovered.

It just takes a tiny spark.












"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om... snip
Seconds are a count of the cycles of a frequency characteristic of
a caesium atom. In simplistic terms, they used to be defined as a
fraction of a year but now we use something more stable but of the
same nominal duration.

What you lot have done is turn a clock from an approximation of a
geometric system into an idealised standard where the geometry is an
approximation.Given that the basis for the development of clocks
originated from geometry it is extremely important to consider how 1
second reflects distance within this system.It has nothing to do with
'time intervals' or 'duration',it strictly operates on the principle
that 1 second is a proportion of distance traveled through a cycle.

Here is how a second and by association a clock works.

snip display related stuff

... when relativity emerged however and forced a 'time' dimension
into existence through clocks it combined seconds as the measure of
the passage of 'time' with the more objective and geometric seconds as
a proportion of distance through a cycle.

snip

historical development the less likely "clocks measure time" can be

Why are you still inventing your own childish version of that
quote?

Because clocks do NOT measure a seperate quantity that relativity
designates as a dimension called 'time'.

I still don't see what that has to do with your reversing the meaning
of the quote. You could state it accurately and then say you disagree.
At least I would get the idea you knew what you were talking about.
However, that is a minor, if annoying point.

You make a fundamental mistake in thinking that Relativity altered
the view of time. I have repeatedly pointed out that this was the
same view as held by Newton but you steadfastly refuse to even
acknowledge what I say. Perhaps this quote will entice you to look
into the matter:

"Hitherto I have laid down the definitions of such words as are
less known, and explained the sense in which I would have them
to be understood in the following discourse. I do not define
time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all. Only
I must observe, that the vulgar conceive those quantities under
no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible
objects. And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing
of which, it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute
and relative, true and apparent, mathematical and common.

I. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from
its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external,
and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and
common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or
unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is
commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a
month, a year."

The above is from Newton's Principia, published in 1687.

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

In particular note:

"Absolute, true, and mathematical time ... by another name
is called duration"

"relative, apparent, and common time ... is commonly used
instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a
year."

A few paragraphs later he says:

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by
the equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural
days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as
equal and used for a measure of time; ... It may be, that there
is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be
accurately measured. All motions may be accelerated and retarded,
but the true, or equable, progress of absolute time is liable to
no change. The duration or perseverance of the existence of
things remains the same, whether the motions are swift or slow,
or none at all: and therefore, it ought to be distinguished from
what are only sensible measures thereof; .."

This entire definition emphasises the fundamental difference between
the "pure progress of absolute time" he also describes as "duration
or perseverance of the existence of things", and the common but
flawed measure of time such as hours and days. Newton talks of the
apparent motion of celestial bodies merely as a means to measure
something quite independent, "Absolute time".

It would really help this conversation if you read that page, there
is a lot more I haven't quoted.

snip

Poincare originally based chaos on the premise that left to their own
devices seemingly simple rules become rapidly complex,the heading of
this thread is an example of that.

That is why I have split the thread. This post relates to the
fundamental disagreement, that of time as a dimension. The other
covers the more general topic of intuition vs. the scientific
method and the specific points on displays. I do not intend to
pursue those themes to any degree.
--
George Dishman
The arrow of time points in many directions.