It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How do you measure time?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
then by the abv description, tachyons can travel back and forth in time..
Okay.. w/o burying our heads in general/special relativistic theories.. look at it this way..
When one measures something its measuring parameters should be completely dependant on the quantity that is being measured and completely independant of everything else so as to give an unbiased reading..

Also the very measuring properties of the meter should not be altered by the very quantity it is measuring. If that happens then a span error creeps into the system and increases with chnage in the quantity being measured.

In this case nothing is independant of time/change..Hence there is nothing that can be considered absolute w.r.t. time, and therefore cannot be a static observer to measure it..
ok now I confused myself!!




posted on May, 25 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Ok, this thread has mentally scarred me as I've thought about it all day long.

Remember the two clocks, set at the same, precise time, they placed one on the space shuttle and left one on the ground. When the shuttle returned, the one that was in the shuttle was a bit slower than the one that remained on earth. Consequently, it was pointed out in the article that if one twin went up and one remained on earth, the one that went up would be younger upon return as time slowed down for him.

Argh! Where's the aspirin?


Actually, I never heard of this.

T, Mc, thanks for the input.

Science currently holds that light speed is tops.
We cannot move faster, it is impossible.

So then..in theory...would doing it be breaking the light and time barrier?
Are they concretely intertwined?



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Tachyon is a general term for a particle that can travel faster than light, which has obviously never been observed, and never will be, because you can't travel faster than light in a vacuum. It's just one of those things a few people threw out there for a "what if" deal. I have no problem with "what ifs," because they eventually lead to some sort of conclusion that further solves the grand puzzle.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Time is a mesurment of light we get each day, note the "clock" is the device we use to follow the sun or keep up with it, how every YOU see it.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
A person's perception of time is subjective in nature as the way that a person "sees" time is a mental state. This explains why when in need a person "sees' time slow down for them.
The below link is an excelent explaination of this.
The Law of Time



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   
What is so cool is that clocks ave always been used in some way, sundials where used back in the day.

Sundial, so a sundial was made to follow the sun. To know when the sun was going to go away, and when it was going to be far and close.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Remember the two clocks, set at the same, precise time, they placed one on the space shuttle and left one on the ground. When the shuttle returned, the one that was in the shuttle was a bit slower than the one that remained on earth. Consequently, it was pointed out in the article that if one twin went up and one remained on earth, the one that went up would be younger upon return as time slowed down for him.


Well, I hate to make life harder for ya, but you're mixing frames. Assuming the shuttle moves at constant velocity, yes, it's time will appear shorter. Higher velocity = shorter time experienced IF YOU MOVE AT CONSTANT VELOCITY!

The thing about the twins is called the twin paradox when phrased properly, as is it is the same as the shuttle. What happens is you have a twin go out to space, come back. That twin says that his twin on Earth moved, and is younger, whereas the twin on Earth says the opposite. That can't happen, hence the apparent paradox. But, the problem here is that the twin going out had to accelerate in order to come back. Time dilation and all that is based on inertial frames ie constant velocities ie no forces. So there is no paradox at all, the entire idea is moot.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Through consentration I have come to realize that everything is time and place, and that they are both an illusion, at least here in the third dimension, because when they overlap eachother you get here and now and that they become confusing yet simple, (confusing?).

If you compact place or a large distance than you can have a time matine: Like a quantom time leap: if you could get an object in the middle of a box that can move back and fourth, and perhaps pt a seed inside of that box that is filled with sey; 10 times the worlds length and compact it into this box somehow that you could get a time matien.
!()!()!



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Time is measured in seconds and a second is defined as the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   
What were the words used to describe "clockwise" and "counterclockwise" motions in English -- before there were clocks?



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
What were the words used to describe "clockwise" and "counterclockwise" motions in English -- before there were clocks?


-Esunwise or sunwise(clockwise)
-widdershins or anti-sunwise(counter-clockwise)

Not exactly English, but how'd i do?


Why is clockwise, Clockwise

(edit)don't quote me on this
but don't clocks pre-date English?


[edit on 26-5-2005 by Rren]



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Although I have yet to take physics, and am apparently not as educated as most seem to be here on ATS, I have often wondered about absolute zero.

It occured to me while cutting a 2X4, as I measured it out I realized that while my tape measurer may say 3 foot 4 and 7/8 inches it would not actually be exactly 3 ft 4 and 7/8 inches.

If i were to use i magnifying glass I would probobly find that I was off the mark perhaps 1/32 of an inch. And if I used a microscope I may find that I was off 1/216 of an inch.

It could go on indefinetly, so that I would never be able to cut my 2X4 EXACTLY 3ft 4 and 7/8 inches. I would never be able to reach my absolute zero.

Perhaps a little off subject. I just wanted to throw in my two cents.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by IndigenousDave
It could go on indefinetly, so that I would never be able to cut my 2X4 EXACTLY 3ft 4 and 7/8 inches. I would never be able to reach my absolute zero.


Absolute Zero is a temperature. It refers to zero K, or -273.15˚C.

As for your 2x4, you would eventually get down to an atom's length. Possibly, depending on the structure and density and all that jazz, you might get exactly the length you want, but it's unlikely. Suffice to say, a tape measure should be sufficient.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Perhaps the true question should be : Can we measure Time?

If by measure we mean the establishment of universally constant, discrete, divisions, then the article referenced here:

www.spacedaily.com...

would seem to argue that the answer should be, No.

And the implications are therefore truelly boggling. Lynds argues that it is not possible to actually divide Time into descrete pieces since it s is not possible to isolate a single "instant of Time".



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   
I did realize that aboslute zero was in reference to temp, I have taken CHEM. I guess I was trying to make a lame attempt to say that the number of possible fractions between 0 and 1 were infinite.

For example, if you were trying to obtain -273.15 degrees C would you be satisfied with -273.149. Or maybe -273.1499999999. I know this is really not very substantial and the whole idea not very important.

I guess I was saying out loud things I probobly should have kept to myself.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
Perhaps the true question should be : Can we measure Time?

If by measure we mean the establishment of universally constant, discrete, divisions, then the article referenced here:

www.spacedaily.com...

would seem to argue that the answer should be, No.

And the implications are therefore truelly boggling. Lynds argues that it is not possible to actually divide Time into descrete pieces since it s is not possible to isolate a single "instant of Time".


Thanks for that one too. It seems like our minds are built on the presupposed positoin of constants. We need constants. Its a messed up place without them.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join