Role of Gravity / Time in a Nuclear Reaction?

a reply to: onequestion

These nuclear tests were observed from a static reference frame at some distance.
The critical event lasted less than a millisecond from that reference frame.
Although the initial VOD never went over 3% of the speed of light the post critical physics were very different and (still classified).
Undoubtedly there could have been elements traveling near the speed of light over very small distances once the nuclear reaction started, perhaps even some velocity grating mechanism was used to lens the reaction.
Some of the best scientists of the day could not make accurate yield predictions.

O Holy Ghost, whose temple I
Am, but of mud walls, and condensèd dust,
And being sacrilegiously Half wasted with youth’s fires of pride and lust,
Must with new storms be weather-beat,
Double in my heart Thy flame,
Which let devout sad tears intend, and let—
Though this glass lanthorn, flesh, do suffer maim—
Fire, sacrifice, priest, altar be the same.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The clock is keeping a record of time though isn't it?

In some sense, yes.

Regardless of the school of science this belongs too I believe that tells us that the clock is in fact observing time.

In the way special relativity defines "observer", yes, but the language of physicists differs from ordinary English in some respects and this is one such case, where the definition of "observe" is context dependent.

Observer (special relativity)

Physicists use the term "observer" as shorthand for a specific reference frame from which a set of objects or events is being measured. Speaking of an observer in special relativity is not specifically hypothesizing an individual person who is experiencing events, but rather it is a particular mathematical context which objects and events are to be evaluated from.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Could we redefine "being in observance of", such as observing a holiday? That's a modality for experience isn't it?

That seems to refer to my previous comment about the meaning of the word "observe" depending on context.

Is experiencing something observance?

Would the clock need to experience time in order for it to record it?

"Experience" also has context dependent meanings, but yes in some sense of the word "experience" the clock experiences time, however not in all possible meanings of the word "experience", some of which connote consciousness and the clock has no consciousness.

a reply to: onequestion

Relative to what though? If you have a rocket ship leaving earth at the speed of light then why doesn't time remain constant on the spaceship and time slow down on earth, as the earth is travelling away from the spaceship at the speed of light as well.

Dutch Scientist Hendrik Antoon Lorentz suggested that directional time dilation are linked to the centre of gravitational mass, in the above example, the Milky Way Galaxy. So it doesn't need an observer, the central gravitational masses are the rulers of time. Shiva will continue dancing long after our mortal lives have ended.

a reply to: glend
Relative to the point of observation.

Where what is time to what?

can time be experienced through different modalities other than a linear progression/ metric/ equation?

Is it measure able in other ways?

a reply to: onequestion

We can only experience the NOW so time appears to be a mental abstract that allows us to categorize memories, or events that have yet to occur. It appears to be in step with space, yet we feel they not the same, perhaps that's a limitation of our physical mind/senses. Science has yet to describe anything more than its fundamental properties. Eastern philosophy, as you are aware, tells us it is one with Maya, the grand illusion. I have always found time intriguing and would also like to know the answers to your questions.