John Smith I wrote:
What we do is confuse time with movement.
Take away movement and you take away our time ...

From: "The End of Time", by Barbour?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:


Not to worry. Any relativistic motion on our part will only effect
the clocks in the other reference frames. And we can't even
communicate with any of those people. :-)


But, Jim, that other reference frame may be yesterday
on Earth. A second today may be shorter than a second
was yesterday. I can prove that seconds are getting
shorter. It takes me many more seconds to run 100
yards than it once did.

I'm pretty sure that first second after the Big
Bang wasn't anywhere near the length of a second now.

The point is that you have to compare clocks in different reference
frames to know it. The second remains the same in each frame of
reference. Since everything we perceive is perceived with respect to
our own reference frame, we really need only concern ourselves with
our own reference frame. But you can still worry about the other ones
if you really want to. ;-)

73, Jim AC6XG

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
What does it mean when someone says the age of the universe
is 12.5 billion years?

Exactly what most people think it means.

Seems like an argumentum ad populum. If we lived
near a black hole, our seconds could be 10^6 times
longer than they are now. What would most people
think then?

Since that would change the defined conditions for the unit of time,
the number would probably change.

But, since we couldn't live that close to a black hole, the point is
moot.

If we lived on Mars, the unit of time would be different too because
the defined conditions for the standard would have changed.

So if we ever colonize Mars, how do we keep Earth and Mars clocks
in sync?

Simple, we define a set of standard conditions that applies to every
place. Any place that doesn't have those standard conditions gets
a correction, just like GPS satellites do.

The second becomes whatever it is defined to be.

Using a relative time standard that obeys the rules
of relativity to assert the absolute age of the
universe seems really strange to me.

Your're playing semantic games Cecil.

All measurments of everything are relative to some standard which is
pretty arbitrary and doesn't matter as long as everyone uses the
same standard.

The standard for time for human beings is based on a particular
property of cesium on a defined Earth.

Using that standard, the age of the universe is what it is.

Use a different standard, you get a different answer.

So what?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Richard Clark wrote:

...

Richard:

You probably won't believe this, but I believe if I place a glass of
water in my microwave and nuke it, I affect the vibration plane of the
water molecules in there!!!

Warmest regards,
JS

wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
What does it mean when someone says the age of the universe
is 12.5 billion years?

Exactly what most people think it means.

Seems like an argumentum ad populum. If we lived
near a black hole, our seconds could be 10^6 times
longer than they are now. What would most people
think then?

Since that would change the defined conditions for the unit of time,
the number would probably change.

But, since we couldn't live that close to a black hole, the point is
moot.

If we lived on Mars, the unit of time would be different too because
the defined conditions for the standard would have changed.

So if we ever colonize Mars, how do we keep Earth and Mars clocks
in sync?

Simple, we define a set of standard conditions that applies to every
place. Any place that doesn't have those standard conditions gets
a correction, just like GPS satellites do.

The second becomes whatever it is defined to be.

Using a relative time standard that obeys the rules
of relativity to assert the absolute age of the
universe seems really strange to me.

Your're playing semantic games Cecil.

All measurments of everything are relative to some standard which is
pretty arbitrary and doesn't matter as long as everyone uses the
same standard.

The standard for time for human beings is based on a particular
property of cesium on a defined Earth.

Using that standard, the age of the universe is what it is.

Use a different standard, you get a different answer.

So what?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
What does it mean when someone says the age of the universe
is 12.5 billion years?

Exactly what most people think it means.

Seems like an argumentum ad populum. If we lived
near a black hole, our seconds could be 10^6 times
longer than they are now. What would most people
think then?

Since that would change the defined conditions for the unit of time,
the number would probably change.

But, since we couldn't live that close to a black hole, the point is
moot.

If we lived on Mars, the unit of time would be different too because
the defined conditions for the standard would have changed.

So if we ever colonize Mars, how do we keep Earth and Mars clocks
in sync?

Simple, we define a set of standard conditions that applies to every
place. Any place that doesn't have those standard conditions gets
a correction, just like GPS satellites do.

The second becomes whatever it is defined to be.

Using a relative time standard that obeys the rules
of relativity to assert the absolute age of the
universe seems really strange to me.

Your're playing semantic games Cecil.

All measurments of everything are relative to some standard which is
pretty arbitrary and doesn't matter as long as everyone uses the
same standard.

The standard for time for human beings is based on a particular
property of cesium on a defined Earth.

Using that standard, the age of the universe is what it is.

Use a different standard, you get a different answer.

So what?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
Shrug.

One defines a standard and works with the standard.

If you want to define a standard unit of time called the glorksnopes,
be my guest.


Jim:

One last try, then I give up. It is much worse than that, as you are
all ready assuming that time exists. Most of us fall error to this. It
certainly seems to exist because how else would we get to our
appointments on "time."

Babble.

What we do is confuse time with movement. Certainly you can see that
our earth time is based solely on movement, the spinning of the earth.
Indeed, we cannot "measure time" if we don't see something moving. Even
your watch depends on movement, either the watch spring driving spinning
gears, or the movement of electrons in its tiny oscillator.

Utter nonsense.

Time on Earth hasn't been based on the spinning of the Earth for
40 years.

You are about 300 years behind the times.

Take away movement and you take away our time ...

Utter nonsense.

But, there could be a "real time." A time which does not depend upon
movement. Indeed, there is good indication that it may exist. As, the
big bang would have needed time to have happened in (or, something akin
to it.) Otherwise, the big bang IS time and time is only movement. I
know, at first it appears rather a circular argument--takes a bit of
getting used to.

Babbling word salad.

Just think about it from "time to time" (or, as you are moving about
grin) ... no reply is necessary.

Regards,
JS

Welcome to the 17th century.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
One defines a standard and works with the standard.

The point is that our "standard" second changes
with velocity and we have no idea what our
velocity is or was or will be. We are defining
our average velocity as a constant without any
evidence whatsoever to support that definition.
That's no different from defining our average
position as the center of the universe.

Since there is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference or
absolute velocity, your point is meaningless.

Time is defined with a velocity of zero relative to the Earth, not
Mars, the Crab Nebula, nor the center of the universe.

The standard is a measurement standard, not some revelation into the
meaning of life and everything.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
What does it mean when someone says the age of the universe
is 12.5 billion years?

Exactly what most people think it means.

Seems like an argumentum ad populum. If we lived
near a black hole, our seconds could be 10^6 times
longer than they are now. What would most people
think then?

Since that would change the defined conditions for the unit of time,
the number would probably change.

But, since we couldn't live that close to a black hole, the point is
moot.

Most of the points in theorectical physics are moot.

wrote:

...
The standard for time for human beings is based on a particular
property of cesium on a defined Earth.

Using that standard, the age of the universe is what it is.

Use a different standard, you get a different answer.

So what?


Jim:

No one can dispute your, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" argument.

Anyone would be fool to throw away our present theories, equations, etc.

However, your argument of, "I am only worried about what happens in my
backyard" would halt progress and advancement towards the real and
correct understanding of these things.

But hey, if what we have right now is working, "Use it!" is my motto ...

Warmest regards,
JS