north

Originally Posted by swansont

If you have to ask, then it's apparent that you don't understand much about how they work. Motion of the atoms adds relativistic effects, so the best clocks would have no motion of the atoms at all. This presents some problems in making the measurements, though, since confining them perturbs the measurement — you move them to a region where they are not perturbed. But to say that motion is the basis of the clock is incorrect.

what of the caesium atomic clocks

' atoms in the lower energy state are directed into a cavity "

Merged post follows:

Originally Posted by north

and the essence of momentum is ?

kinetic energy, which is not time.

of course

your point

If you have to ask, then it's apparent that you don't understand much about how they work. Motion of the atoms adds relativistic effects, so the best clocks would have no motion of the atoms at all. This presents some problems in making the measurements, though, since confining them perturbs the measurement — you move them to a region where they are not perturbed. But to say that motion is the basis of the clock is incorrect.

 

If you are referring to the electron itself, I ask what motion? The electron has no classical trajectory, so it is incorrect to say it is in motion, or that this motion is the basis of the measurement. The clock measurement is due to a spin orientation transition, but spin is not a physical property, it is intrinsic angular momentum. To say that this represents motion is to impose a classical picture on a quantum-mechanical effect.

you know it would be much more helpful for us all if your quotes were much more complete

so we can follow the jist of your discussion

Originally Posted by north

I think your right though

 

electrons comprise the magnetic field

 

there are " clicks " so to speak when a magnetic field is induced upon an object

Electrons most definitely do NOT comprise the electric field.

really

I thought we were talking about magnetic fields , rather than " electric fields "

comprise = "to be made up of" and you have electric fields where there are no charges. QED. (The other QED)

explain further

An open ended pipe would presumably due to the presure of ice expanding against ice and delay caused by not everything happening at once still result in some extra presure.

define " open ended pipe "

because really your not making sense

an open ended pipe , means to me that the ice will travel along the length of the pipe , and does so because there is no blockage along the length of the pipe , rather than expanding outwards , towards the sides of the pipe

Merged post follows:

bascily if you use wrap insulation around your piping that is exposed to the enviroment , you should be fine

keeping the wind , especially , OFF your exposed pipes is essential

Originally Posted by north

sure name me any measurement of time not based on the movement of objects or the interactions of

Atomic clocks measurements are not based on motion.

yes they are

Motion exists, because motion cannot be eliminated.

obviously

Less motion gives a better result.

how so

Merged post follows:

Originally Posted by north

and the essence of the motion on which time is based is ?

momentum,

and the essence of momentum is ?

Originally Posted by north

sure name me any measurement of time not based on the movement of objects

the measure of time is not time.

the essence of the measure of time is motion.

and the essence of the motion on which time is based is ?

I've been trying to remember when I realised I don't actually know.

 

A stream of electrons would be bent if it were to pass through a magnetic field, wouldn't it? So I don't think a magnetic field is actually made of electrons.

 

I can only assume it's some force-carrier particle that I've forgotten exists. What is it and how are they generated?

I think your right though

electrons comprise the magnetic field

there are " clicks " so to speak when a magnetic field is induced upon an object

ya, but you can add 1diminsional objects together all you want,

you can add 1 dimensional objects together hmmm.....?

really

1 dimensional objects don't even exist physically in the first place

let alone " adding them together " !!!!

the hightest its gonna get is 3d, and thats only if you change veiws to a more eye level view instead of birds eye. if you add 3d objects together, it just becomes a more jumbled, fatter 3d object. it could doe do more, but we just cant visualize it because we dont know what it would look like at all. weve never expereinced it, and probably never will in this lifetime.

WHAT !!!!

In my neighborhood here in Texas we have the water flow valves to each house above ground, apparently due to some building code. This means that, of course, the valves freeze over the winter and start leaking water everywhere.

 

obviously

 

but to help this , use a heater water line and wrap this heater line with some sort of insulation

 

So, a question: Suppose I were to take a very strong pipe and freeze the water in it. Would it break just as easily as a weak pipe would, since water will expand as it freezes regardless of its container, or would it withstand the force?

 

no

 

a weakness in any pipe , is a weakness period

 

I was thinking two things could happen: the strength of the container would mean increased pressure on the water as it started freezing (since it would try to expand and fail), meaning more energy would be required to freeze the water and break the container; or, the freezing water would merely extrude itself along the insides of the pipe rather than breaking it.

 

depends

 

look say you a foot of pipe filled with water and then allowed the water in this pipe to freeze , with no escape at either end . the odds are that the pipe will burst , whether it be copper or iron ( I know that copper pipe will , seen it many times ) iron hmm... maybe , maybe not , but the pressure would be enormous

 

now if the the pipe is open-ended the ice will expand as far as it can go , along the length of the pipe

 

Which explanation makes the most sense, or would each pipe break at the same time?

 

no

 

above

 

(We actually put a fake plastic rock over our valve to help protect it from the weather, and that seems to have saved us.)

 

the fake rock was just enough to protect the valve from the cold

 

by the way I live in central Ontario , Canada

 

what you describe is par for the course up here , nothing new!!!!

 

we can get too minus 20 , 30 and sometimes 40

Originally Posted by north

actually what propose is not a theory but fact

 

think about it in depth

If it's fact, then it must be observed to be true.

sure name me any measurement of time not based on the movement of objects or the interactions of

Better still if it's predicted by existing theory.

no theory even suggests what I'm thinking

obviously

But since movement cannot be stopped, how could this ever be observed?

this statement makes sense to you ?

if so why ?

If we do this abstractly, by transforming into a reference frame where there is no motion, we see that time runs at its fastest — that motion causes time to run slower.

for example

So how is it that you present this as fact?

because motion is always based on some physical pressence

always

If it's bollocks then he doesn't really need to. Unless ofc you are asking for help with it.

so is it bollocks Sayonara ?

no , not just a sine wave but also a horizontal wave as well

its been to long

Yeah... like I said... anything other than semantics to offer? Haven't you been banned for this behavior like nine times already? Let's just make it permanent and move on, shall we?

just semantics only ?

it seems iNow you aren't able to give a constructive discussion against my example in the two threads before

I believe vacuum and space can be considered the same thing.

 

They can also be considered a dielectric medium with certain properties which regulate the speed of light.

 

What I'm wondering now is: How does light travel (or propagate) through this "medium"? I remember reading somewhere that virtual particles interact to propagate light through space, but I can't remember the details.

light propagates through space assuming that the source of the light has not diminshed and also through an atternating wave pattern

light alternates between a vertical and horizantal wave pattern

both push each other outwards into space

its been a long time that I found out about this , so I'm sure somebody will correct me on this , on the details

lets look at time mathematically for the moment , which is what people are comfortable with

 

we have a four dimension grid

 

we have length , breadth , depth

 

we have an object at 0 x, y , z

 

now we move the object at a particular point on this axis say x is 2 , y is 2 and z is 2

 

now my point is what is the essence of the change in position of the object ?

 

movement by the object its self , either by the interaction(s) with other objects

 

or simply by the object its self

Originally Posted by north

 

see my point above

 

it is not time that moves any object

 

but consequence(s)

Actually, no. You have simply asserted this and expected us to accept it as true. Perhaps once you've supported this position using something other than semantics your point will be worthy of further consideration. Until that occurs, it is not.

an aeroplane is moved from point 0 in a three dimensional grid

to another point on the three dimensional grid

is it because of time or because of the movement of the plane ?

it is because of the movement of the plane

so just to be clear you believe time only passes if an observer is there to measure some difference?

no

first you suggest i apply time alone to an objects motion, then you say it's impossible, which is it?

what I'm saying is that without motion , time does not even exist , nor has the possibility to exist in the first place

Merged post follows:

lets look at time mathematicly for the moment , which is what people are comfortable with

we have a four dimension grid

we have lenght , breadth , deepth

we have an object at 0 x, y , z

now we move the object at a particular point on this axis say x is 2 , y is 2 and z is 2

now my point is what is the essence of the change in position of the object ?

movement by the object its self , either by the interaction(s) with other objects

or simplely by the object its self

Merged post follows:

see my point above

it is not time that moves any object

but consequence(s)

What is vacuum aka space supposed to be made of?

nothing

it is devoid of any substance in the strictess of a a vacuum

space is space

now what I think your really asking is whether space has anything within it ?

of course

your confusing space and a vacuum in space

they are two seperate things , really

Since vacuum has properties such as impedance, permiability and permittivity, is it considered a media?

first define " vacuum "

and see if this makes sense towards what you have written above

only joking. just the same thing as saying . not like its actually a virus, as in a bad thing, like its a way of understanding that, once in your head, is rather hard to get out. like a virus.

its kind of an inside joke i guess. my bad.

gotcha

you got me , for a moment:D

Merged post follows:

Originally Posted by north

1) that time is merely a consequence of the measurement of the movement of object(s)

 

2) apply time and time alone to any object(s) movement and see if that makes any difference to the object behaviour , physically

that is an argument for philosophy, does time pass unless a tree falls in the forest etc.

no

how do you apply time alone to movement?

you can't

where is it moving?

where is what moving ?

and so the virus spreads:)

meaning ?

just to be clear

i think its neither time doesnt allow movement, energy allows movement, and movement doesnt create time, time measures movement. so theres no creating or allowing, its just measurment. time is man-made. i think that movement is indepedent of time and time is just the measurement of any moving bodys selected lifespan amount. like the measurment of a selected amount space is meters, feet, kilometers, time is just like that, and we use things like seconds, days, hours etc... to express it.

you got it

( slowly but surely the truth about time is sinking in , expanding into the general mind set )

And for those of us remaining awake, what pray-tell is the way you can test your assertions?

 

Scratch that...

 

1) Using precise language, what is your claim? Then...

2) How can we run a test on that claim that has the chance of falsifying it?

1) that time is merely a consequence of the measurement of the movement of object(s)

2) apply time and time alone to any object(s) movement and see if that makes any difference to the object behaviour , physically

There is no way to test your theory so I will go to bed now.

actually what propose is not a theory but fact

think about it in depth

Wouldn't that be like saying your sight would quit working just because it was dark and there was nothing to see?

NO

why would think that ?

and what is the connection with what you say and time ?

If you freeze time, movement will stop.

 

you got it backwards

 

if you freeze movement , time will stop

 

 

If you stop movement, time will not freeze.

 

above

 

 

I think time is independent of movement unless you can prove otherwise.

 

if there is no movement what then is time based on ?

Oooh... I know... Semantic Games!!

not at all

if you disagree show semantics games are prevalent

rather than reasoning

Merged post follows:

Not only movement, but gravity has an influence on time.

indirectly

Is time needed for gravity to exist?

absolutely not