Re: Have you ever wondered.....

From: Kees Roos (croos_at_xs4all.nl)
Date: 03/01/05 

Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 07:06:13 +0100

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
news:7dednbVyGPJE477fRVn-jQ@conversent.net...
>
> "Kees Roos" <croos@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:422371fb$0$28975$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
>> news:2YCdnZ_Bns1Sjr7fRVn-2Q@conversent.net...
>
;; Description of experiment by Allyou under discussion:
;; We have a 3D vectorspace sm,
;; unit vector x = unit vector y = toof, unit vector z = nim
;; Moving objects in sm: B1 and B2
;;
;; As the experiment begins, we propel B1 and B2 in
;; sm along randomly chosen, linear, non-parallel paths.
;; Let's stop here. Each point along the path of B1 and B2
;; will have a unique, three dimensional position.
;; There will be an x-axis value, a y-axis value and a z-axis value.
;; IOW, if we abruptly stop all motion in sm at any point,
;; we'd be able to note the values of all three coordinates
;; for both B1 and B2.
;;
;; If we do this often enough, on some attempts, B1 and B2 will
;; collide and on some they will not. On those where they do not,
;; there will still be a point in sm where the paths of B1 and B2
;; could have intersected at x and y, except that the value of z as
;; B1 gets to the potential intersection (think of the paths as temporary
;; roads) will be different than the value shown as B2 gets there.
;; IOW, the value of X and Y for both marbles will be the same, but the
;; value of z will not.
;;
;; Now, on those attempts where there is a collision, all three
;; coordinate values (x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis) will
;; be the same for both B1 and B2.
;;
;; Description of scenario agreed by Allyou and Kees Roos:
;; p(x) are the various pictures we might take
;;
;; p(0): B1 location: x = 0, y = 0, m = 0 (0,0,0)
;; B2 location: x = 0, y = 1, m = 0 (0,1,0)
;;
;; p(1): B1 location: x = 3, y = 4, m = 5 (3,4,5)
;; B2 location: x = 6, y = -7, m = 5 (6,-7,5)
;;
;; End of descriptions.
;;
;; Challenge by Allyou:
;; So now the only issue left to resolve is what to call that third axis
;; (i.e., time or motion), and I challenge you to debate the issue with
;; me.
;;
;;
;; Debate by Kees Roos:
;; -I denote the thing under discussion [motion|time(we have to decide
;; which)]m|t(whtdw)
;;
;; -Your wbt clock relates motion of the white ball relative to the
;; graduated tube to z-ordinates in sm of objects B1 an B2 and
;; of all the universe as well.
;; However, if you would have used an atomic clock, that would
;; have yielded exactly the same results, without involving any
;; motion at all.
;; The process which the clock uses, does not influence the
;; result in any way.
;;
;; -Even if you use your wbt clock to measure the interval of
;; m|t(whtdw) that does not imply that what is measured should
;; be called 'motion'.
;; Rulers are objects which measure distances.
;; However, a distance is not an interval of object, but an
;; interval of 'space'.
;; Likewise, a clock uses a physical process to measure
;; intervals of m|t(whtdw).
;; However, an inerval of m|t(whtdw) is not an interval of
;; clock process, it is an interval of whatever you want to
;; call the dimension in which the interval is situated.
;; To call it 'motion' is highly misleading, because motion
;; is not at all the only possible clock process. Indeed,
;; in physics the relation between motion and time
;; has been abolished because we have far more accurate
;; calibrating processes.
;;
;; End of debate by Kees Roos

[snip]
>> -Your wbt clock relates motion of the white ball relative to the
>> graduated tube to z-ordinates in sm of objects B1 an B2 and
>> of all the universe as well.
>> However, if you would have used an atomic clock, that would
>> have yielded exactly the same results, without involving any
>> motion at all.
>> The process which the clock uses, does not influence the
>> result in any way.
>
> That may be true, but that's the next phase of the debate. Let this
> particular phase
> represent physics as we knew it before the atomic clock, and then we can
> proceed to the
> next.
>
So, your revised 'theory' is:
Physics as we knew it before the atomic clock was used
should have replaced the concept 'time' by the concept
'motion'.
That's hardly worth any debate, because that physics
doesn't exist anymore (it was abandoned in 1956).

> But at any rate, I've shown how we can relate the positions and motion of
> all
> objects in the universe by picking one reference motion. for now, I'll say
> that it
> doesn't heve to be a motion, but it has to be some physical process, and
> I've used motion
> in this construct in order to make my point. So, are we done with this
> construct or not?
>
I agree that clocks utilize physical processes to do what they do.
The challenge was to debate whether they measure 'motion'
or 'time'.
Can we alter that into:
;; Challenge by Allyou:
;; So now the only issue left to resolve is what to call that third axis
;; (i.e., time or clock process), and I challenge you to debate the issue
with
;; me.

I think my present debate does just that.

>> -Even if you use your wbt clock to measure the interval of
>> m|t(whtdw) that does not imply that what is measured should
>> be called 'motion'.
>
> That's the next phase.
>
>> As you say, rulers are objects which measure distances.
>> However, a distance is not an interval of object, but an
>> interval of 'space'.
>
> That's for the next phase. Since we began this debate, I've revised my
> position on the
> physicality of space. It's now my position that space is no more physical
> than time.
>
I fully agree.

> Space cannot be measured because it has no porperties.
>
So, a ruler does not measure spatial intervals?

>> Likewise, a clock uses a physical process to measure
>> intervals of m|t(whtdw).
>> However, an inerval of m|t(whtdw) is not an interval of
>> clock process, it is an interval of whatever you want to
>> call the dimension in which the interval is situated.
>> To call it 'motion' is highly misleading, because motion
>> is not at all the only possible clock process. Indeed,
>> in physics the relation between motion and time
>> has been abolished because we have far more accurate
>> calibrating processes.
>
> See the above.
> 

-- 
Regards, Kees Roos

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... >> In our debate of your claim that in physics the concept ... >> motion is be 'physical' and time isn't (that's what you ... > beyond debate, than let me know. ... -Next came the vectorspace model. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... The thing we are measuring is the same thing. ... by black box I mean the atomic clock ... equivalent to motion which tiggers the generation of events. ... able to say with any degree of reasonableness that "In physics, ...
    (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.....
    ... but that's the next phase of the debate. ... >> represent physics as we knew it before the atomic clock, ... Did this construct establish that motion, together with distance, could be used to ... can call that third axis *time*, or whether or not we should more properly call it motion. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... "My debate shows that the z-axis in this construct does not relate to ... in your 3D construct is equivalent to time in physics." ... "I have shown that the progression in the z-direction is not related to any motion (change ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)