Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #382307

Re: Particle Physics

Show all headers | View raw

Am 25.04.2016 13:07, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>>>> You want to use units against their intended purpose and measure length
>>>> with a clock and time with a meter stick.
>>>
>>> And what do you think the "intended purpose" of units is?
>>>
>>> Be REALLY careful with what you answer, and be sure you base it on what
>>> scientists actually say, not your own opinion.
>>>
>>
>> Units have an idea to what they shall express.
>>
>> The concept behind the term 'length' stems from common observations, we
>> have as human beings, living on planet Earth:
>>
>> The movement from one spot to the other requires a number of steps.
>>
>> If we make '1 step' a unit, then the counting of steps would be
>> sufficient to measure the distance between spot A und spot B upon the
>> surface of Earth.
>>
>> Now '1 Step' was not really useful, since all people have different legs
>> and make different steps.
>>
>> This problem was 'solved' by 'length of the King's feet'. Since England,
>> Egypt, Prussia and the USA had different Emperors, the feet was
>> different in different nations.
>>
>> Then came Napoleon and replaced 'Royal feet' with 'the meter'.
>>
>> This was defined by a Platinum bar in Paris.
>>
>> Now smart Physicists came along, and wanted something more precise and
>> not as expensive as that Platinum bar.
>>
>> So they used light to define the meter, but oriented their definition on
>> that Platinum bar in Paris.
>>
>> With this light it and the definition of 'length' it was now possible to
>> measure other distance, in directions, into which you cannot walk (like
>> to the Moon).
>>
>> But the concept was inherited from counting steps on a journey upon the
>> surface of planet Earth, only generalised into other directions and
>> measurement by other means than comparing length to the own limbs.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> Now notice that you have ignored time in the above while you have
> defined length.

Actually I had tried to explain the concept behind the term
'length' (or 'distance').

'Time' has a similar foundation in everyday experiences: the hart beats, 
the sun goes up and down and the seasons change.

Usually we divide the length of a day in 24 hours, the hour in 60 
minutes and the minute in 60 seconds.

We hope, the length of the day does not change (what it in fact does) 
and therefore base the term 'time' on our home-planet's movements.

The experience we have in connection with 'time' are a lot of changes 
occurring in our environment.

Some of these changes seem to be proportional to the movements of planet 
Earth about its axis of rotation, so we utilise these to 'measure' time.

In fact we do not measure time directly, but count events or observe 
changes and use these changes to measure time.

This works quite well and measurements of time could be very precise.

Only: if the rotation velocity of planet Earth around its axis would 
change, we cannot measure this, since the unit 'second' is based on the 
same phenomenon we try to measure.

We also have no real knowledge, if a second is a long period of time or 
a short one, since time is kind of 'relative.

> I'm going to assume that you've done that because you have assumed that
> time is an independent concept from distance. What that means that FOR
> ALL OBSERVERS, a change in length does not involve a change in duration.

If the observer would be a car and existence is like driving along a 
certain street, the clock would behave like an odometer.

In such a picture time is similar to a distance (on our 'wordline') and 
rotation of the Earth could be symbolised by rotations of the 'wheels of 
life'.


> This last statement is important, because it shows the difference
> between an independent unit and independent COMPONENTS. For example, it
> is easy to say that north-south is independent of east-west, because I
> can certainly make movement in the north-south direction without moving
> in the east-west direction, and vice versa. Because I can do that, it
> would be tempting to say there's good reason to measure north-south
> distances differently than east-west distances, and to use different units.

Now you try to introduce SRT with an inappropriate picture. (I also 
think, that SRT is wrong.)

> However, a change in north-south distances is not independent of
> east-west distances for ALL OBSERVERS. Indeed, if there is an observer
> that has a different direction defined as north (say, magnetic north as
> opposed to polar north) and is rotated relative to the first observer, a
> change in length in the north-south direction will be accompanied by a
> change in length in the east-west direction. Thus, the two units
> (north-south and east-west) are not independent for all observers after
> all; they are mixed. And indeed, you know that what stays the same,
> regardless of rotation, is the "as the crow flies" distance, which
> combines the north-south distance and east-west distance.

Now the picture gets even worse.

> Likewise, what turns out to be true is that length is not independent of
> duration for ALL OBSERVERS. The two are mixed, and indeed as mixed as
> east-west and north-south.
>
> The HISTORICAL reasons why length and time were considered different are
> irrelevant. After all, people once thought that the primary elements
> were earth, water, air, and fire, so that liquids and solids were made
> of fundamentally different elements. This we know now is simply not
> true, regardless of historical reasons.


These 'elements' have not been meant like our modern chemical elements. 
It is more like qualities, rather types of stuff. And these principles 
have names like 'fire' instead of (say) 'heat'.

Also the Chinese 'Ying' and 'Yang' are ideas about basic principles, not 
chemical elements.


TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Particle Physics Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 17:09 -0700
  Re: Particle Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-21 19:42 -0700
    Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-22 06:42 +0200
      Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 07:14 -0500
        Re: Particle Physics David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-22 07:01 -0700
        Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-22 19:49 +0200
          Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 13:06 -0500
            Re: Particle Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-23 01:37 +0200
          Re: Particle Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-22 13:35 -0500
            Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-22 22:29 +0200
              Re: Particle Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-04-22 23:32 +0200
                Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-23 06:15 +0200
                Re: Particle Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 22:25 -0700
                Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-23 23:18 +0200
                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 13:55 -0500
              Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 08:33 -0500
                Re: Particle Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-04-23 15:53 +0200
                Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-23 20:36 +0200
                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 13:59 -0500
              Re: Particle Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-23 16:43 -0500
                Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-24 07:16 +0200
                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 14:02 -0500
                Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-25 06:55 +0200
                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 06:07 -0500
                Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-26 22:24 +0200

csiph-web