Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math Subject: Re: ? ? ? Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 06:51:49 +0100 Lines: 50 Message-ID: References: <1HWE6H1jV8YTvxfaaL7fnCCcpe8@jntp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net hEA/XIfJqysX3l6c8RI6YAKMBxe1pgwSsZHg0pdA2ou2P2sMpw Cancel-Lock: sha1:5HGX+4wokUEJifGU7yh2FlBNoLI= sha256:OZd1h8beS8hEpowCM9vuzKV2wA68FZ2uxR4rwEeK7Pw= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:651837 sci.physics:885504 sci.math:625731 Am 28.02.2024 um 23:22 schrieb Huy Kántor Hegedűs: > Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 26.02.2024 um 21:57 schrieb Piotr Babchenko Bakulev: >>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master >>>> clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence. But no such >>>> thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local and clocks >>>> depend on the local environment and count something there. >>> >>> actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference in >>> relativity you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny >>> indeed. As for instance >> >> Sure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact. >> But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is >> required for the increase of entropy in the first place. > > the Entropy 𝗜𝗦 time. Please stop 𝗻𝗼𝘁 undrestanding tensors. Look at this: No, because both terms are related, but not equal. Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution. Heat dissipates, hence entropy increases. But that is not time. The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency. That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and the second. Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of certain atoms. But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying frequency was assumed to be universally constant. But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether these frequencies are universally constant or not. This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same process, which frequency we like to measure. TH