Re: Have you ever wondered.....

From: Kees Roos (croos_at_xs4all.nl)
Date: 12/08/04 

Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 07:38:48 +0100

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
news:A72dne0r44KMnivcRVn-oQ@conversent.net...
>
> "Kees Roos" <croos@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:41b5e952$0$78753$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
>> news:Pv6dnZl2lfVvwCncRVn-tA@conversent.net...
>> >> "Kees Roos" <croos@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
[snip]
>> >>> 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.
>
> I fear that there's nowhere for us to go when you claim that something
> imaginary can be
> measured. You're making the case that something imaginary is physical
> because it can be
> measured. That's pure nonsense.
>
But you agree that what goes on inside a clock is irrelevant, and that the
only relevant aspect of a clock is the ticks it emits?

[snip]

>> > The concept of a clock is a device which emits regular and constant
>> > ticks.
>> > Whatever generates the ticks is not part of the concept.
>
> And it certainly isn't time or in any way linked to anything but a natural
> phenomenon.
>
Two things:
-We agree that whatever generates the ticks is not time, and that whatever
generates the ticks must be a natural phenomenon.
-I said that whatever it is, it is irrelevant. Any assertion you make about
it
is about an irrelevant thing.

[snip]
>> >>> "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?
>
> No, I'm saying that we should apply definitions after we know what
> something is or isn't
> and not before. We do not study the phenomena of nature by first
> generating definitions
> that suit us. We find what we find and then we describe them with
> definitions.
>
Right. We used to have a definition of 'second' which linked it to the time
period of one revolution of the earth. Then we found out that there are
irregularities in this period and that it is deteriorating, so it it is
unsuitable
as a standard.
We also found out that we had a far more regular and constant natural
phenomenon, which is far more suitable as a standard, so we redefined
our 'second' and now it is related to that far more suitable standard.
We found what we found, and then made the definition, just like you
say how it should be done.

> You and I
> are debating what a thing is, if anything at all, and your argument is
> grounded in a
> definition of the very thing under discussion. That's just silly.
>
We debate whether a clock measures 'time' or 'motion'.
The definition we presentky discuss is no definition of time, nor is it a
definition of motion.

[snip]
>> > 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.
>
> The theory which links a ruler to space is as basic as direct comparison.
> That which I
> observe on my ruler is consistant with the definition of distance, and
> that which I'm
> measuring is consistant with the definition of distance.
>
How can this be a 'theory' which links the behavior of any ruler
to the notion you call space? You don't mention space anywhere.
Could you retry?

[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?
>
> No, I'm saying that the concept of halfway between two points is defined
> by the objects at
> those two points. You said there were *no* visible objects. I said that
> your concept was
> flawed. The occurrence of no visible objects (I take visible to mean
> observable) is not
> possible.
>
So, when you 'observe' the distance between two spatial points, you
actually observe two objects located at those points, and you
also observe nothing at all in between these objects. You infer the
distance between the two objects by comparing their spatial coordinates,
and say that their spatial distance is an interval of space. However, if you
try to observe anything along that stretch of space, you observe nothing.
Would you say that you observed space, or that you inferred space?

[snip] 

-- 
Regards, Kees Roos

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... > But you agree that what goes on inside a clock is irrelevant, ... >> measuring is consistant with the definition of distance. ... > So, when you 'observe' the distance between two spatial points, you ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The spinoza papers: design of the extra-precision number object 2
    ... approximation will be truncated to some arbitrary point (either a fixed ... But many "real" values are also exact. ... measuring, there comes a point (which varies depending on what we're ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Liar Liar
    ... random aa's or a maximally distant sequence. ... is not the same as the likely gap distance and my calculations reflect ... Your notion that the minimum likely distance stays at the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: biblical literalism and problems with science
    ... There's a ghost in this machine. ... I believe consciousness as I know it ... agian where and how did you observe a qualia? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Value convertion problem
    ... however, I think I'm doing the convertions ... Also, when outputing the Distance objects, ... Then I would not return anything and make the conv return void. ...
    (alt.comp.lang.learn.c-cpp)