Seeing things in their past? You are full of beans!

[james blunt]

There is no difference between time and our measurement of it.

I like how you express ''it'' independently of your measure.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I like how you express ''it'' independently of your measure.

So no comment on the reality of physics?

 

[james blunt]

So no comment on the reality of physics?

The reality you seem to think the frequency of a caesium atom is time itself you mean?

 

[Polymath257]

The reality you seem to think the frequency of a caesium atom is time itself you mean?

Please tell how to determine 'time itself'.

 

[james blunt]

Please tell how to determine 'time itself'.

The memory of past information relative to now .

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Bingo - just like the physical distance doesn't literally shrink, the measurement for that physical distance may change, but that measurement means something different in that reference frame.

Just like my examples with the 5 1/2" pen. Someone else in another frame of reference may have measured it at 2 3/4" long, but in reality it is still a 5 1/2" long pen.

No, in relativistic time frames, the distances are both actually real. That's kinda the point of relativity, that there is no underlying static "true" distance, speed, or time at all. All such measures are inherently dictated by the frame of reference of the observer.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The reality you seem to think the frequency of a caesium atom is time itself you mean?

The oscillation of the cesium atom is determined by physical constants. Those physical constants are . . . . wait for it . . . CONSTANT. The only way for these cesium clocks to be out of sync is for time itself to tick at a different rate between frames of reference.

 

[james blunt]

The oscillation of the cesium atom is determined by physical constants. Those physical constants are . . . . wait for it . . . CONSTANT. The only way for these cesium clocks to be out of sync is for time itself to tick at a different rate between frames of reference.

For time itself, now consider what you are saying there. Again you refer to an independent entity. Why not accept change of time = change of entropy?

This defines time independent to substance and gives time physicality, also making your theory on time dilation correct.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

For time itself, now consider what you are saying there. Again you refer to an independent entity. Why not accept change of time = change of entropy?

This defines time independent to substance and gives time physicality, also making your theory on time dilation correct.

That has nothing to do with how cesium clocks work.

 

[james blunt]

That has nothing to do with how cesium clocks work.

delta f = delta S

yes it does

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

delta f = delta S

yes it does

Again, that is something you made up.

 

[james blunt]

Again, that is something you made up.

No its not, if the output is changing , quite clearly the ''internals'' are altered to change the output.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

No its not, if the output is changing , quite clearly the ''internals'' are altered to change the output.

That is something you have made up from whole cloth.

 

[james blunt]

That is something you have made up from whole cloth.

How is that made up when it is thought's about the mechanics involved?

 

[Polymath257]

For time itself, now consider what you are saying there. Again you refer to an independent entity. Why not accept change of time = change of entropy?

This defines time independent to substance and gives time physicality, also making your theory on time dilation correct.

because that definition doesn't agree with what clocks say? The use of clocks gives a usable definition of how to measure time. Furthermore, that definition works consistently in a variety of equations to give useful predictions. It also agrees with previous definitions to within margins of error. Those justify the use of the word 'time' for what is measured.

Now, 'change of entropy' doesn't have those properties. It isn't as easy to measure. The results don't agree with older definitions, even approximately. And it can't be used effectively in laws of motion to make accurate predictions. So it isn't a useful way of defining the word 'time'. In particular, we can have two different systems where the entropy changes by different amounts and yet the changes happen over the same time period (say, a second).

So, while 'change of entropy' may well be an interesting subject of study, it *isn't* the same as time.

 

[james blunt]

because that definition doesn't agree with what clocks say?

Yes it does, it works perfectly without affected the science .
The only difference is the rate of time can change in many ways , i.e entropy

Consider a snowman , that simple.

 

[Polymath257]

delta f = delta S

yes it does

As it sits (interpreting f as frequency and S as entropy), this is a very testable prediction. So, if we can set up a system where the entropy changes very little, but the frequencies change a lot, then it could be dismissed as invalid. Agreed?

OK, so take a cube of some gas. Expand it adiabatically along one axis of the cube (so entropy doesn't change--definition of adiabatic). The frequencies of sound waves in the container will change according to the length of the different axes and the speed of sound in the gas. Are you predicting that since the entropy is constant, the frequencies won't change?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes it does, it works perfectly without affected the science .
The only difference is the rate of time can change in many ways , i.e entropy

Consider a snowman , that simple.

Snowmen change the rate time flows? Sure, why not? makes as much sense as the rest of this gibberish.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes it does, it works perfectly without affected the science .
The only difference is the rate of time can change in many ways , i.e entropy

Consider a snowman , that simple.

Nope, it fails miserably. For example, if a system has a very small change in entropy, your view would predict the time involved would be small also. And that need not be the case.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

How is that made up when it is thought's about the mechanics involved?

You are making stuff up when you say that flying a cesium clock around in an airplane changes the entropy within the clock in such a way that it affects the way in which is measures time.