#1
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks George
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
George J. Bugh's Spin Wave Technology conception of the Vasant Corporation | Starblade Darksquall | Astronomy Misc | 2 | September 21st 03 10:39 PM |