Re: Have you ever wondered.....

From: Kees Roos (croos_at_xs4all.nl)
Date: 12/07/04 

Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:32:58 +0100

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
news:Pv6dnZl2lfVvwCncRVn-tA@conversent.net...
>> "Kees Roos" <croos@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>> news:41b16d79$0$36860$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>> "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
>>> news:8uudnaKFXfp-hDLcRVn-ig@conversent.net...
>>> >
>>> > "Kees Roos" <croos@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>>> > news:41af023b$0$37789$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>> >> Excuse me for the delay. Had visitors.
>>> >> "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
>>> >> news:cuadnYxE8v5r-DHcRVn-iA@conversent.net...
> [snip]
>>> > Then why did you shift focus to the black box? Yes, by black box I
>>> > mean
>>> > the atomic clock
>>> > because you cannot say with any degree of certainty that it's not
>>> > motion
>>> > or a phenomena
>>> > equivalent to motion which tiggers the generation of events.
>>> >
>>> I mentioned the atomic clock because it is intimately connected with our
>>> definition of the unit of time interval.
>>> It is the signal which emanates from the atoms which we use to calibrate
>>> the clock. What happens inside the clock when this signal is generated,
>>> what triggers the event of emitting the photon f.i., is irrelevant
>>> because
>>> we don't use any of it.
>>
>> Because it's convienent to ignore because you have a placeholder in
>> physics which you call
>> time. But time is imaginary like point and plane. It's just a tool.
>>
> Imaginary or not, we can measure it with a clock. Whatever goes on inside
> a clock is not relevant. What comes out is: regularly and constantly
> seperated ticks.
>
> [snip]
>>> > If it's only a better
>>> > clibration standard, then you should have no problem staying with old
>>> > fashion mechanical
>>> > clocks in which we're reasonably sure are driven by motion.
>>> >
>>> Clocks, of any kind, are driven by energy, there is no clock driven by
>>> motion.
>>> I have no problem with any clock as long as it reliably meters out
>>> seconds.
>>
>> The mechanism is driven by energy. The concept of the clock is driven by
>> motion. The
>> generation of events for which we use the clock is powered by motion. I
>> think you have a
>> basic problem distigusihing between the physical and general concepts.
>>
> A concept is a mental image of a thing. It is not driven at all.
> The concept of a clock is a device which emits regular and constant
> ticks.
> Whatever generates the ticks is not part of the concept.
>
>
>>> > so not only were you never
>>> > able to say with any degree of reasonableness that "In physics, time
>>> > is
>>> > no
>>> > longer
>>> > connected to any motion", but now we know it shouldn't matter.
>>> >
>>> In physics the standard unit of time interval is the second, which
>>> presently
>>> is defined as a specific number of oscilation periods of specific
>>> frequency.
>>> No motion mentioned anywhere. So, I am able to say with perfect
>>> certainty
>>> that "In physics, time is no longer connected to any motion". In fact I
>>> have
>>> been able to do so all the time, and never have said anything else.
>>
>> But you are only able to say it with certainty because you rely on the
>> definition of a
>> thing in order to debate it. For as long as you rely upon definitions of
>> those things
>> which are under discussion to prove that you're view is correct, we can
>> go
>> nowhere.
>>
> Are you saying that the thing you are debating has no definition?
> How can you carry on a debate about a thing, if you don't know what it is?
>
>> You
>> summarized this discussion for the purpose of agreeing on two points, but
>> you've taken
>> advantage of that opportunity to simply return to the tactic of relying
>> upon definitions
>> of that which is under discussion to support your case.
>>
> [snip]
> To return to those two discussion points, I repost parts of my article,
> which
> you snipped. It is a pity that you didn't have the courage to continue
> on those two points.
> Could it be that you are unable to formulate your 'theory' that links
> the behavior of any ruler to the notion you call space?
> And that you see it coming that you cannot deny that space is just as
> abstract as time is?
> Start of repost:
>
>> I have no objection to shifting away from motion to calibrate or clocks.
>> I'm not
>> convinced that there is anything else, but it wouldn't bother me if there
>> were.
>>
> You realize that that means that you consent that what clocks measure is
> not connected to motion in any way?
>
> [snip]
>>
>> Where's the theory that links the behavior of any clock to the notion you
>> call time? I
>> can see the link with every other instrument which measures every other
>> phenomena, but I
>> don't see that link in the case of time. All I see is a blind assertion.
>>
> I very much doubt that your definition of 'theory' coincides with mine, so
> I'm not sure what you mean.
> Could you show me your 'theory' that links the behavior of any ruler
> to the notion you call space? That could show me what you mean.
> I will then give you my analoguous 'theory' that links the behavior
> of any clock to the notion I call time.
>
> [snip]
>>
>>> >> -What comprises simple observation, space first.
> [snip]
>>> > I know that space is physical because the interval between two spatial
>>> > points is
>>> > observable with my sense of sight,
>>> >
>>> Would that be true if there would be no visible objects at those
>>> spatial locations?
>>
>> First of all, if there were no visible objects, then there would be no
>> points in space for
>> me to evaluate and so you're asking a hypothetical question here is
>> already flawed.
>> Points with no objects to define them are pure imagination.
>>
> So, would you say that when you look at the moon, there is no
> halfway point between there and here unless you position an
> object at that point?
>
>> I didn't
>> claim that I could
>> observe every instance of space, but just that the phenomena or property
>> of nature called
>> space is observable.
>>
> So, you can observe phenomena in space, but not space itself?
> [snip]
>
>
> End of repost. 

-- 
Regards, Kees Roos

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Einsteins disservice to physics
    ... so he spent a great deal of time to reduce physics ... If we observe that frequency to slow, ... He notes that the clock that journeyed ... a space ship at high velocities, one would observe the on board clock ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The reality of entity
    ... If there is no motion, you have a temperature of absolute zero. ... Consider a thermal medium, say a pot of hot water, with lots of water ... medium is the face of the clock. ... Of course this point is worthless in terms of modern physics, ...
    (sci.philosophy.meta)
  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... ;; IOW, if we abruptly stop all motion in sm at any point, ... ;; Debate by Kees Roos: ... ;; -Your wbt clock relates motion of the white ball relative to the ... > represent physics as we knew it before the atomic clock, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Scientifically valid definitions.
    ... >> A clock is what we look at to measure time. ... observation of time which you know is not a motion or the result of a ... > That's metaphysics, not physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... >> referring to an atomic clock? ... The thing we are measuring is the same thing. ... > equivalent to motion which tiggers the generation of events. ... In physics the standard unit of time interval is the second, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)