Strange Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 It's a bit unorthodox, but what's wrong with it? I don't know what it means. Are we talking lux, lumens, watts, joules ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 We're talking ct, which is distance. Just a new label. Nothing conceptual has changed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted May 6, 2015 Author Share Posted May 6, 2015 We're talking ct, which is distance. Just a new label. Nothing conceptual has changed. Yes. Scientists use v/c as speed, but they don't understand that it is real speed without my definition of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 (edited) Yes. Scientists use v/c as speed, but they don't understand that it is real speed without my definition of time. Sorry to burst your bubble but special relativity already uses ct. [latex]ds^2=c^2 dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2[/latex] The above equation is invarient [latex] y = (ct,\acute{x},\acute{y},\acute{z})[/latex]=new coordinates;[latex] x = (ct, x, y, z)[/latex]=old coordinates Edited May 6, 2015 by Mordred 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 Yes. Scientists use v/c as speed, but they don't understand that it is real speed without my definition of time. And yet we seem to muddle on just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted May 7, 2015 Author Share Posted May 7, 2015 And yet we seem to muddle on just fine. I see no sense when citizens of every planet use time of own planet. Time should be defined only by length of light way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 I see no sense when citizens of every planet use time of own planet. Time should be defined only by length of light way. You mean the units of time? You then have to worry about how you define the length you are going to time the light pulse over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 I see no sense when citizens of every planet use time of own planet. Time should be defined only by length of light way. And how would you build a clock using this definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted May 8, 2015 Author Share Posted May 8, 2015 And how would you build a clock using this definition? I talk about units of time. Atomic clocks aren't build on Earth's rotation, but they show it. They can show length of light way with the same success. What is time which should be used by interplanetary nomads? And even light clock can exist. You mean the units of time? You then have to worry about how you define the length you are going to time the light pulse over. System of calculations of distances and light receptions let you define age of the universe. Isn't it the clock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 I talk about units of time. Atomic clocks aren't build on Earth's rotation, but they show it. They can show length of light way with the same success. What is time which should be used by interplanetary nomads? And even light clock can exist. Fine. Go build one. System of calculations of distances and light receptions let you define age of the universe. Isn't it the clock? Not a very precise one. How would you make GPS work with this kind of clock? 3ns of timing error sacrifices 1 meter of positioning precision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 System of calculations of distances and light receptions let you define age of the universe. Isn't it the clock? So you want one unit of time to be the age of the Universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share Posted May 9, 2015 So you want one unit of time to be the age of the Universe? Unit of time should be 281374807m of length of light way. It is distance of balance of gravitational force and cosmological force of interaction of two bodies each of which has 1 kg of mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 So translating that back into seconds you would use the speed of light; this is just the time light takes to travel 281374807m? I am not quite sure what you mean by cosmological force, that does not really matter. The point is you fix some length and time light over that distance. Okay, no problem, but this is just using "x =ct" in what ever units you are using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share Posted May 9, 2015 So translating that back into seconds you would use the speed of light; this is just the time light takes to travel 281374807m? I am not quite sure what you mean by cosmological force, that does not really matter. Then how do you define interplanetary unit of time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Then how do you define interplanetary unit of time? What you have done is okay, once we all understand units of distance. The definition of a second is "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." This was calibrated to more-or-less agree with earlier definitions. The best thing for a universal unit of time would be something like this, maybe change the number of periods to maybe 10 000 000 000 or something. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Unit of time should be 281374807m of length of light way. It is distance of balance of gravitational force and cosmological force of interaction of two bodies each of which has 1 kg of mass. Why is 1kg of universal significance? (Interestingly, the kg is the only unit that is still defined in terms of a physical object, rather than fundamental constants.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share Posted May 9, 2015 Why is 1kg of universal significance? (Interestingly, the kg is the only unit that is still defined in terms of a physical object, rather than fundamental constants.) Only for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 There should be a better way of defining a kg, one that is not dependent on having master objects. I don't know the details, but it is possible to use Planck's constant to define one kg. Doing so would give a universal definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 There should be a better way of defining a kg, one that is not dependent on having master objects. I don't know the details, but it is possible to use Planck's constant to define one kg. Doing so would give a universal definition. 1 cm3 of water is 1.00000g at sea level and 4oC. That's a standard anybody can replicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Only for example. So, as you have chosen a completely arbitrary number why not stick with the definition of the second that we already have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 1 cm3 of water is 1.00000g at sea level and 4oC. That's a standard anybody can replicate. How precisely can that standard be realized? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 How precisely can that standard be realized? Is volume not standardised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Is volume not standardised? How well can you measure volume, stabilize temperature & humidity, and ensure isotopic composition? All of those factors (and probably others) would come into play in realizing a standard mass defined this way. Water is relatively incompressible, but ultimately not accounting for the local value of g will limit the measurement, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 (edited) How well can you measure volume, stabilize temperature & humidity, and ensure isotopic composition? All of those factors (and probably others) would come into play in realizing a standard mass defined this way. Water is relatively incompressible, but ultimately not accounting for the local value of g will limit the measurement, as well. How many places of accuracy do you need for a standard? That number I pulled out was by the USGS. If you look at the table, it seems pretty fine to me. I'm not disagreeing with you really, I'll have to look into what goes into a deriving a standard. Using Litres as Kilos is how I check my fishing scales. Don't you have lots of variables to account for when measuring/standardising the second? Edited May 11, 2015 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 How many places of accuracy do you need for a standard? Clocks go to better than a part in 10^15. There's seemingly always someone who wants a better standard, or finds a use for one. Form mass I'm not sure what the application is, but I assume it's out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now