Types Of Clocks Which Have Actually Measured Time Dilation

[mrg]

What economic class do you come from?

 

The 1%.   Kinda the low end of that range.  

 

But it's not actually necessary to go to school to learn something difficult.   I've been trying to teach myself Japanese for years and years.   I've only made limited progress, but I am making progress.   I am learning it by cracking the books.   I do not troll internet forums on the subject, that being an inefficient means of learning -- all the more so because the information obtained from such sources is very unreliable.   Besides, I would be embarrassed to show off my lack of skill in the subject, in good part because there is no useful reason to do so.

[Super Polymath]

Especially because I'm learning to write with my left hand.

[OceanBreeze]

Especially because I'm learning to write with my left hand.

 

Because your right hand is permanently stuck to your chin?

[mrg]

Because your right hand is permanently stuck to your chin?

 

Remember, if you ask folks like SP a question, you've just given them an invitation to come up with more of the same.

 

It does work to ask them a doofus question -- and then give the answer yourself.   It wrongfoots them, denying them control of the conversation.  They don't like it.

[Super Polymath]

Remember, if you ask folks like SP a question, you've just given them an invitation to come up with more of the same.

 

It does work to ask them a doofus question -- and then give the answer yourself. It wrongfoots them, denying them control of the conversation. They don't like it.

Some people want to be controlled. Though they won't let me loose on those people & thats why I'll be on strike for quite some time. Edited May 26, 2017 by Super Polymath

[mrg]

Some people want to be controlled.

 

But your tinfoil-lined hat has allowed you to see the Trooth.

[billvon]

Sure it does. It has nothing to do with all the people I know that are drowning in student debt.

I was "drowning in student debt."  Then I got raises and paid off the debt.   (The raises - and the job itself - came about largely because of my education.)

[AmishFighterPilot]

I was "drowning in student debt."  Then I got raises and paid off the debt.   (The raises - and the job itself - came about largely because of my education.)

I'm glad you have made it work. Education is valuable, but its also sold in a predatory manner. When you're poor, your family is poor, and you have people depending on you it isn't always simple. Not everyone experiencing life the same, and terms like "economic recovery" are meaningless when all the job creation was at Walmart and the like.

[AmishFighterPilot]

 

The 1%.   Kinda the low end of that range.  

 

But it's not actually necessary to go to school to learn something difficult.   I've been trying to teach myself Japanese for years and years.   I've only made limited progress, but I am making progress.   I am learning it by cracking the books.   I do not troll internet forums on the subject, that being an inefficient means of learning -- all the more so because the information obtained from such sources is very unreliable.   Besides, I would be embarrassed to show off my lack of skill in the subject, in good part because there is no useful reason to do so.

I think that is great that you're working on a skill on your own like that. I think if you were to go into a Japanese forum and try to explain the fundamental concepts of Japanese to them it would of course be obnoxious. However, the skill of speaking and understanding the language is not entirely analogous in the sense that it is a historically and culturally established communication skill that has both canonical and amorphous elements. Ultimately the language was arrived at by the subjective choices of various humans to associate certain sounds with certain concepts, objects, etc.

 

The sciences are, on the other hand an attempt to explain the facts of the universe as best we are able. If the sciences were all settled though, there wouldn't be any science left to do. I am NOT claiming what I am doing here is science, but it is speculation about areas that science has not yet been established. There may be "proper" and formulaic ways to approach certain questions, but often the inspiration for proper scientific pursuit is actually pseudoscience and speculation. How many scientists have specifically tried to invent something because they saw it on Star Trek? How many odd lines of scientific inquiry would have been missed out on if there was never any deviation from the established understanding of the universe? Think of all the things Archamedes, DaVinci, and Orwell dreamed up despite having no way to possibly understand the proper terminology of the various sciences they conceived before their time.

 

I can never get a straight answer about exactly what the mechanism of time is. I can be shown exactly what "space-time" is, but the mechanism of time, and why it flows continuously in one direction. It makes a lot of sense that "time" is both finite and also infinite. It also makes sense that quantum data has a way to enter regular space-time again after the matter's escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. So instead of just assuming all possibility plays out and the universe cools down and dies, perhaps there is a mechanism that would explain how the quantum data is redistributed after it's "time" has played out. Why couldn't this data arise anywhere there is a corresponding event horizon? Its just the concept of an Einstein-Rosen Bridge. I am just speculating that they are in fact so common that we're actually made of them.

[exchemist]

 

I think that is great that you're working on a skill on your own like that. I think if you were to go into a Japanese forum and try to explain the fundamental concepts of Japanese to them it would of course be obnoxious. However, the skill of speaking and understanding the language is not entirely analogous in the sense that it is a historically and culturally established communication skill that has both canonical and amorphous elements. Ultimately the language was arrived at by the subjective choices of various humans to associate certain sounds with certain concepts, objects, etc.

 

The sciences are, on the other hand an attempt to explain the facts of the universe as best we are able. If the sciences were all settled though, there wouldn't be any science left to do. I am NOT claiming what I am doing here is science, but it is speculation about areas that science has not yet been established. There may be "proper" and formulaic ways to approach certain questions, but often the inspiration for proper scientific pursuit is actually pseudoscience and speculation. How many scientists have specifically tried to invent something because they saw it on Star Trek? How many odd lines of scientific inquiry would have been missed out on if there was never any deviation from the established understanding of the universe? Think of all the things Archamedes, DaVinci, and Orwell dreamed up despite having no way to possibly understand the proper terminology of the various sciences they conceived before their time.

 

I can never get a straight answer about exactly what the mechanism of time is. I can be shown exactly what "space-time" is, but the mechanism of time, and why it flows continuously in one direction. It makes a lot of sense that "time" is both finite and also infinite. It also makes sense that quantum data has a way to enter regular space-time again after the matter's escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. So instead of just assuming all possibility plays out and the universe cools down and dies, perhaps there is a mechanism that would explain how the quantum data is redistributed after it's "time" has played out. Why couldn't this data arise anywhere there is a corresponding event horizon? Its just the concept of an Einstein-Rosen Bridge. I am just speculating that they are in fact so common that we're actually made of them.

I applaud your curiosity. However I would urge you to proceed with crystal clarity as to what you mean when you introduce concepts and also to be clear about how your ideas relate to current science. I honestly think you would do better to learn more before trying to construct - however you choose to do that. Things are very carefully thought through in science. Resist the temptation to "make sh1t up", as one of my correspondents on another forum use to put it.

[JMJones0424]

Some people want to be controlled. Though they won't let me loose on those people & thats why I'll be on strike for quite some time.

Controlled by whom?  I choose to act based on evidence.  If you can provide nothing but platitudes, then I'd rather not be controlled by your fantasies.  Who is this "they" that is keeping you from "those people"?  Is it those that have the audacity to ask you to support your claims rather than taking them as gospel?

 

This is a science forum.  You have a right to post whatever you wish on your own rag.  Don't pretend to have a right to post unsupported claims here.

[mrg]

Controlled by whom?  

 

SP is just rambling.  He reminds me of  [ R i c h a r d    K e p l e r ]  AKA  [ D i c k i e   K e p s l o c k e r ] -- an unbalanced creationist who liked to spam websites at length with his incoherent rantings.   The "DK" nickname was from his inclination to LEAVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY ON!!!!!1111ELEVEN!1!   I have to be careful not to write his name out, since he will likely appear here if I do, and nobody wants that.  With Google, speak of the devil, and he WILL show up.

 

I learned about what is known as "clang" from DK.   It's a symptom of schizophrenia, singsong nonsense rhyming.  I have often said that it would be easy, if it were worth the bother, to write a chatterbot program to imitate most trolls.  Somebody actually did it with DK -- look up "Word Salad Generator" along with his nickname.

 

Hmm, the same page also references [ C h r i s   H a y n e s ] -- another ranting creationist, less incoherent, more tuned to being obnoxious.

Edited May 27, 2017 by mrg

[mrg]

I can never get a straight answer about exactly what the mechanism of time is.

 

That's because it's not a straight question.   It's a fundamental concept, like "mass" or "color" or "distance" that isn't defined in terms of anything else.  We can provide examples and maybe elucidate details, but that's about it.   Nobody has any trouble understanding them anyway.

 

OK, let me back up and be polite.   If it doesn't work, I will have at least tried, and there will be nothing further to talk to you about anyway,  I'll just tell you to have a nice day and leave you alone.  Promise.

 

I have a document on relativistic physics on my website.   It's an intro document, but it's got good feedback.   It discusses special relativity in detail, general relativity (GR) in broad terms.  It was said elsewhere that it is often claimed GR can't be explained to layfolk, but of course it can -- at a layfolk level of detail.   Now if you want more detail, you'll need to learn tensor calculus ... but that would be a lot of work for something that isn't really useful to layfolk.   In short, if you don't have and don't need the apparatus to probe more deeply into the matter, you have no choice but to accept the layfolk discussion and leave it at that.   You are not in a position to pose pertinent questions, much less understand the answers.   You are implicitly dissing the expertise by saying you don't care about it, and just want to be spoon-fed the answers.

 

I also did a document on quantum physics, which has got some good feedback as well.  However, somebody said:  "It's not very deep."   Well DUH, if you're not doing quantum physics for a living, what more do you need to know about it?   If you want more than the layfolk discussion, you'll have to acquire professional skills to even ask credible questions -- and it is hard to understand why you would want to do that much work for something that's no more than a casual interest to you.   If you DON'T want to do the work, then your questions aren't credible, and certainly not worth the bother of answering.   Consider it "matching your silly  questions with our silly answers."   What could be more fair?

 

I recall a creationist who told me that he had read books on evolution, and so felt he had a legitimate opinion on the matter.   I told him that he was free to have any opinion he liked, fine, whatever -- but he was NOT in a credible position to dispute the science.   He had no qualifications for doing so, and obviously no interest in acquiring them.

 

PS:  Again ... if you are really interested in getting the real nitty-gritty, an internet forum is a very poor place to get it.

Edited May 27, 2017 by mrg

[JMJones0424]

I can never get a straight answer about exactly what the mechanism of time is. I can be shown exactly what "space-time" is, but the mechanism of time, and why it flows continuously in one direction. It makes a lot of sense that "time" is both finite and also infinite.

You can't ever get a straight answer for the simple reason that we don't know what the mechanism of time is.  Clearly, we can see that time exists, as we can observe things changing over time.  Also, we can accurately use time in equations that describe our observations.  The idea of space-time is simply a realization that time is just as important as length, width, and height when describing the location of an observed phenomenon.  If I ask you to meet me at the corner of 5th street and Elm avenue on the second floor for coffee, you need to know what time we are to meet in order to identify the specific location that you are to meet me.  Time is finite because it is a property of the universe, and our universe, as best we understand, has existed for a finite amount of time.  Yes, this is circular.  No, we don't have a better explanation of time that would remove this circularity.

 

However, there is nothing that I am aware of in our physical understanding of the universe that mandates that time must be uni-directional.  We certainly have not observed anything going back in time, but our physical models of reality do not preclude such a thing  (except perhaps the concept of entropy?  Though now you must identify why entropy and time move in the same direction, which is fundamentally the same as asking why time moves in the direction it does).  Time is that which is measured by a clock, just as distance is that which is measured by a ruler.  We cannot answer, fundamentally, anything beyond that because we do not know.

 

Here's a blog post by a physics instructor that covers the subject better than I can:

http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2013/04/29/what-is-time/

Edited May 27, 2017 by JMJones0424

[Super Polymath]

SP is just rambling.  He reminds me of  [ R i c h a r d    K e p l e r ]  AKA  [ D i c k i e   K e p s l o c k e r ] -- an unbalanced creationist who liked to spam websites at length with his incoherent rantings.   The "DK" nickname was from his inclination to LEAVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY ON!!!!!1111ELEVEN!1!   I have to be careful not to write his name out, since he will likely appear here if I do, and nobody wants that.  With Google, speak of the devil, and he WILL show up.

 

I learned about what is known as "clang" from DK.   It's a symptom of schizophrenia, singsong nonsense rhyming.  I have often said that it would be easy, if it were worth the bother, to write a chatterbot program to imitate most trolls.  Somebody actually did it with DK -- look up "Word Salad Generator" along with his nickname.

 

Hmm, the same page also references [ C h r i s   H a y n e s ] -- another ranting creationist, less incoherent, more tuned to being obnoxious.

Hey Dickie Kepler & Chris Haynes, come into this thread!

[mrg]

I just reported you, SP.   Rambling on is one thing; inviting notorious spammers to pollute this forum is another, purely malicious in intent.   At the very least, the moderators need to delete that posting.   Possibly they may consider deleting you as well.  You might consider deleting that posting to forestall that possibility.

Edited May 27, 2017 by mrg

[OceanBreeze]

I just reported you, SP.   Rambling on is one thing; inviting notorious spammers to pollute this forum is another, purely malicious in intent.   At the very least, the moderators need to delete that posting.   Possibly they may consider deleting you as well.  You might consider deleting that posting to forestall that possibility.

 

Lighten up! He would not have even known those names if you didn't mention them. Anyway, he is just lonely for people who think the same as he does. Thankfully, they must be hard to find!