Re: Define a clock
From: AllYou! (idaman_at_conversent.net)
Date: 10/01/04
- Next message: AllYou!: "Re: Define a clock"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Define a clock"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Define a clock"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Define a clock"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 07:54:17 -0400
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:QG17d.9894$5O5.7878@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
> news:VOSdndshfqaZ2sHcRVn-ig@conversent.net...
> >
> > "Daniel Weston" <daniel009@webtv.net> wrote in message
> > news:4809-415C3C83-128@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net...
> > > A clock is usually defined as 1) periodicy + 2) a counter. It is
> > > difficult to understand how such an incorrect definition could obtain
so
> > > much popularity. This becomes clear when there is provided a black
box
> > > that meets that definition absolutely but cannot be used as a clock.
> > >
> > > It is easy enough to make a device that contains periodicy and that
> > > counts such periodicy. Assume you are presented with a black box that
> > > has periodicy and has achieved a count of 1,467,982 since it was
turned
> > > on. What does this tell you as to time? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
> > > The definition is deeply suspect.
> > >
> > > A timepiece (clock) should be defined as 1) predictable motion + 2) a
> > > translator. The translator translates predictable motion into
> > > a rotational day, or some fraction thereof.
> > >
> > > 1) periodic motion + counter = clock, is FALSE.
> > >
> > > 2) predictable motion + translator = clock, is TRUE.
> >
> > So how inaccurate would it be to say that a clock requires a velocity
> > through a distance? Is this not the definition of motion?
>
> The inaccuracy has to with the fact clocks exist in which a precise
velocity
> is an ill defined concept due to QM eg the electrons in a cesium clock
emit
> radiation due to change in energy levels not velocity.
So time is what *certain* clocks says it is. It's pretty funny that you
jumped in at this point in the discussion, yet despite my repeated requests,
you've been too afraid to step out there and offer your own definition of a
clock. If time is what a clock says it is, then what's a clock?
> What is required is
> a repeatable recurring process - that is all - velocity need not have
> anything to do with it.
And how is this process observed? If everything, and I mean everything, in
a given FOR has no velocity whatsoever, how can you possibly measure time?
How will this magical clock operate? What could its instrumentation
possibly sense if nothing at all in that FOR moves? Do these magic clocks
of yours even read waves of some sort? Do these waves move?
- Next message: AllYou!: "Re: Define a clock"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Define a clock"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Define a clock"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Define a clock"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|