Notices
Results 1 to 69 of 69

Thread: Constructing Time from Four Axioms

  1. #1 Constructing Time from Four Axioms 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    Here goes:

    A1: Complex numbers exists. Call this C.

    A2: x = x

    A3: x + y = y + x

    A4: A is a subset of B if B contains A and B - A not = the empty set.


    Index.....Statement...………………………………………………………………………… ………….. Reason

    1...…...….Construct S = C x C................................................. ......................................A1, A2

    1.1...…….S is 4 dimensional....................................... .............................................…...1

    1.2.........Set the components of S = S_1,2,3,4 in the following order: Re, Im, Re, Im.....1, A2

    2......…...S can transform into two Riemann Spheres......................................……... A1, 1

    3............Construct two Riemann Spheres in S, call it RS x RS..............................…..A1, 1

    4............Isolate the Riemann Circle of S_3, 4 and call it P_T.................................…A1, 3

    4.1......…I'm going to use physical terminology below........................................…..De cleration

    4.2...…..Construct "physical space" = S_P = CxC/S_4.......................................…...…A1, A2

    5......…..Let P_T advance by one (rotate relative to S1,2,3) when encountering a space node and let the rotation be a quantum rotation. Call this "freq" =
    T_S......................….............A1, 4, 4.2, A2

    7......…..Define "Change in freq" by T_Sf - T_Si…………………………………....5

    8...........Let S_1,2 be perpendicular to S_3,4............................................. ....................1

    11..........Construct {for all n = 1 to N: n(T_Sf - T_Si)} . Call this "Changes in freqs.".........5,7

    12.........Define "basic time interval" = Delta t_B = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n=1}^N n(T_Sf - T_Si)].................................................. .................................................. .......................1-11, A3, A2

    13.......Construct MxT_S, M element of Natural Numbers subset of C..................................5, A4

    14.......Define " Basic time" = t_B = {1/[(1/M) (\sum \limits_{n=1}^M n#T_S)]}*Delta t_B.......................12, 5,
    A3

    15........Couple t_B to every node of S_P and call the result "basic spacetime"= B_ST...........4.2, A2, A2

    15.1.....Construct S_i = CxC............................................... .........................................A1

    16........Construct RSxRS in S_i, call it Pp................................................ ..................15.1, 2

    17........Isolate the Riemann Circle in Pp and call it P_BT.............................................. ......A1, 16

    18........Let P_BT advance by one (rotate relative to S_i1,2,3) when encountering A B_ST node and let the rotation be a quantum rotation. Call this "freq2"= T_BST...…………………………………………………………………………………….......... ....................17, A2

    19........Construct KxT_BST, K element of Natural Numbers, subset of C..................….......18, A4

    20........Define "Tim1" = t_1 = 1/[(1/K)(\sum \limits_{n=1}^K n#T_BST)]..............................A3, A2, 18

    21.......Pp is in every particle of the clock............................................. .............................Requirement

    22.......Tim1 advances like a clock, it depends on the Pp in the clock and on the route in B_ST.............................................. .................................................. .................................18, 21

    23.......Tim1 = Time.............................................. .................................................. ........A3, 22

    For the Riemann Circle rotated through any finite amount, infinity is still at the north pole of the corresponding Riemann Sphere.


    Last edited by talanum46; May 14th, 2019 at 11:05 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,746
    Moved to Personal Theories.
    You didn't get far on SciForums pushing this, what makes you think you'll do any better here?


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Moved to Personal Theories.
    You didn't get far on SciForums pushing this, what makes you think you'll do any better here?
    What they may not realise is if they define time using a clock, all the parts of the clock, how they fit together and how they function must be specified.
    Last edited by talanum46; May 13th, 2019 at 02:43 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,746
    And... wrong again.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    And... wrong again.
    I didn't yet see a definition of time, except my own. Please quote one - an Alien that just understands language must be able to use the definition.
    Last edited by talanum46; May 13th, 2019 at 06:26 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,475
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    What they may not realise is if they define time using a clock, all the parts of the clock, how they fit together and how they function must be specified.
    Actually, it is a benefit of defining time in terms of a clock that a clock can be defined by instructions of how it is built. This provides genuine meaning to the definition of time as a physical notion. By contrast, you have provided no connection to the physical world.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    What they may not realise is if they define time using a clock, all the parts of the clock, how they fit together and how they function must be specified.
    Actually, it is a benefit of defining time in terms of a clock that a clock can be defined by instructions of how it is built. This provides genuine meaning to the definition of time as a physical notion. By contrast, you have provided no connection to the physical world.
    The numbers and space connects it. What is the benefit? Can the instructions be typed on a page without pictures?

    There is motion in a clock so the definition would be circular.

    It is highly unlikely that current clocks give the correct time according to my construction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,475
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    What they may not realise is if they define time using a clock, all the parts of the clock, how they fit together and how they function must be specified.
    Actually, it is a benefit of defining time in terms of a clock that a clock can be defined by instructions of how it is built. This provides genuine meaning to the definition of time as a physical notion. By contrast, you have provided no connection to the physical world.
    The numbers and space connects it. What is the benefit? Can the instructions be typed on a page without pictures?

    There is motion in a clock so the definition would be circular.

    It is highly unlikely that current clocks give the correct time according to my construction.
    Defining time as what a clock measures, and defining a clock by instructions to build it, is not circular. Furthermore, it defines a physical notion (time) in terms of a physical notion (building a clock). While it is useful to describe physical reality in terms of mathematical quantities, unless there is a connection between the mathematics and the physics, the mathematics is meaningless. The way to define physical quantities is to describe how those physical quantities are measured (or to define them in terms of other physical quantities that are defined by how they are measured).
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    Yes, but you must set the clock into motion in order to measure, that makes the (required) extension of the definition circular. My construction does assign meaning to mathematical quantities.

    The clock so constructed won't neccesarily measure the correct time.
    Last edited by talanum46; May 13th, 2019 at 12:13 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,475
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    Yes, but you must set the clock into motion in order to measure, that makes the (required) extension of the definition circular.
    Really?? What sort of clock are you referring to? Atomic clocks are based on the energy levels of atomic orbitals and the frequency of the light emitted when electrons transition from one orbital to another.


    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    My construction does assign meaning to mathematical quantities.
    I don't see any connection to physical notions. It isn't enough that you mention physical quantities. You have to provide a truly physical connection. Without it, it can't be used in the physical world. For example, what is a second? Although it's true that a second is an arbitrarily defined unit of time, it still is a specific interval of physical time. What is this specific interval of physical time?


    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    The clock so constructed won't necessarily measure the correct time.
    What do you mean by "correct time"? In particular, why wouldn't a constructed clock measure it?
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    Yes, but you must set the clock into motion in order to measure, that makes the (required) extension of the definition circular.
    Really?? What sort of clock are you referring to? Atomic clocks are based on the energy levels of atomic orbitals and the frequency of the light emitted when electrons transition from one orbital to another.
    A mechanical clock. An atomic clock has moving electric currents. The last instruction must be: "Activate the clock." because one need to test it. This is where the circularity arises.


    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    My construction does assign meaning to mathematical quantities.
    I don't see any connection to physical notions. It isn't enough that you mention physical quantities. You have to provide a truly physical connection. Without it, it can't be used in the physical world. For example, what is a second? Although it's true that a second is an arbitrarily defined unit of time, it still is a specific interval of physical time. What is this specific interval of physical time?
    It is in line 23: "Tim1 = Time". Time is physical. A second is a fraction of a year. Time was fitted to a year.


    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    The clock so constructed won't necessarily measure the correct time.
    What do you mean by "correct time"? In particular, why wouldn't a constructed clock measure it?
    The correct time is if time advances as in line 18: one turn for every B_ST-node P_BT encounters. (The inverse average of many T_BST's). A constructed clock would not measure it because it was fitted to a year. Thus not as in 18.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,475
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    An atomic clock has moving electric currents. The last instruction must be: "Activate the clock." because one need to test it. This is where the circularity arises.
    How exactly does a circularity arise from activating the clock? Actually, the benefit of defining time as what clocks measure is that it does avoid the Münchhausen trilemma.


    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    It is in line 23: "Tim1 = Time". Time is physical.
    Actually, "Time" in line 23 is not physical. It is just a word.


    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    A second is a fraction of a year
    How does this relate to your construction of time? The point of my question was to ask how your construction of time can be used (for example) to set my alarm. That's what I mean by the "physical world".
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    How exactly does a circularity arise from activating the clock? Actually, the benefit of defining time as what clocks measure is that it does avoid the Münchhausen trilemma.


    Which of the three options does it avoid?

    It is just a word.


    So is instructing someone how to build a clock. It's up to the user to link words to physical objects.

    How does this relate to
    your
    construction of time? The point of my question was to ask how your construction of time can be used (for example) to set my alarm.


    My construction gives the correct time. It's something to check clocks against.




    Last edited by talanum46; May 15th, 2019 at 10:53 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,222
    Youre purposly quibbling about the semantics of line 23 to avoid the problem that you are incoorect about physical clocks.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Youre purposly quibbling about the semantics of line 23 to avoid the problem that you are incoorect about physical clocks.
    And you are purposely not linking the word "time" to physical time in order to quibble.

    Let me tell about the circularity: as the clock gets activated there is movement in the clock and movement presuppose time, but we are trying to define time - circular.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,475
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    How exactly does a circularity arise from activating the clock? Actually, the benefit of defining time as what clocks measure is that it does avoid the Münchhausen trilemma.
    Which of the three options does it avoid?
    All of them. It avoids circularity because the definition of the clock, as instructions to construct it, do not make any reference to time. This is actually not true for all types of clocks, but for an atomic clock, it is true. It avoids infinite regression because the definition stops at possessing the clock. And it avoids being axiomatic because a clock is a tangible physical object.


    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    It is just a word.
    So is instructing someone how to build a clock.
    Not necessarily. One can show someone how to build a clock.


    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    It's up to the user to link words to physical objects.
    And what physical object is time?


    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    My construction gives the correct time. It's something to check clocks against.
    How? You still haven't provided anything tangible.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,475
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    Let me tell about the circularity: as the clock gets activated there is movement in the clock and movement presuppose time, but we are trying to define time - circular.
    Whether or not instructions to build a clock lead to circularity in the definition of time depends on whether the rate-determining components of the clock are specified in a time-dependent manner. In the case of an atomic clock, the rate-determining component is the radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium-133. This specification makes no reference to anything that is time-dependent. You mentioned the electric current used to operate the clock, but while electric current is a time-dependent notion, it does not affect the radiation frequency of the caesium-133 atom, and hence there is no circularity.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    And what physical object is time?

    An object that advances, depends on a clock and on the route of the clock through spacetime.

    How? You still haven't provided anything tangible.


    By determining the route of the clock through B_ST and then computing.

    Whether or not instructions to build a clock lead to circularity in the definition of time depends on whether the rate-determining components of the clock are specified in a time-dependent manner. In the case of an atomic clock, the rate-determining component is the radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium-133. This specification makes no reference to anything that is time-dependent. You mentioned the electric current used to operate the clock, but while electric current is a time-dependent notion, it does not affect the radiation frequency of the caesium-133 atom, and hence there is no circularity.


    The transitions are presumeably caused by photons, which depend on time.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,222
    No they dont. So you are actively ignoring fact
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,475
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    And what physical object is time?
    An object that advances, depends on a clock and on the route of the clock through spacetime.

    How? You still haven't provided anything tangible.
    By determining the route of the clock through B_ST and then computing.
    How does this differ from defining time as that which clocks measure?


    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    Whether or not instructions to build a clock lead to circularity in the definition of time depends on whether the rate-determining components of the clock are specified in a time-dependent manner. In the case of an atomic clock, the rate-determining component is the radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium-133. This specification makes no reference to anything that is time-dependent. You mentioned the electric current used to operate the clock, but while electric current is a time-dependent notion, it does not affect the radiation frequency of the caesium-133 atom, and hence there is no circularity.
    The transitions are presumeably caused by photons, which depend on time.
    Well yeah... it's a clock... of course it depends on time. To establish a circularity, you need to demonstrate that constructing a clock requires a clock.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    It actually does since you need a reference time to calibrate your clock to. A year is a timespan of the natural clock: Earth orbiting the Sun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    To establish a circularity, you need to demonstrate that constructing a clock requires a clock.


    It actually does since you need a reference time to calibrate your clock to. A year is a timespan of the natural clock: Earth orbiting the Sun. And a cesium atom is another natural clock. How are you sure every second is exactly a second?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,475
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    To establish a circularity, you need to demonstrate that constructing a clock requires a clock.
    It actually does since you need a reference time to calibrate your clock to.
    An atomic clock does not need to be calibrated. The caesium-133 atom oscillates at a frequency of 9192631770 Hz and this is the basis of its use as a primary standard. Do not confuse the redefinition of the second with calibration of the clock. The only reason the new second was made to conform to the old second was to maintain backwards compatibility. But from a purely logical perspective, it was not necessary to compare the new clocks with any old clocks. One could simply start from scratch by defining a new unit of time based on the caesium-133 atom.


    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    How are you sure every second is exactly a second?
    The simple answer to this is the constancy of the laws of physics. But to determine the appropriateness of the use of caesium-133 as a primary standard, one could measure the precision of the caesium-133 atom oscillation frequency. Caesium-133 is not perfect, that's why other technologies are being explored as possible future standards of time.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,222
    A year is A wholly arbitrary time frame as well, move to Jupiter or a different solar system and the year is different. You are still waffling
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    An atomic clock does not need to be calibrated. The caesium-133 atom oscillates at a frequency of 9192631770 Hz and this is the basis of its use as a primary standard. Do not confuse the redefinition of the second with calibration of the clock. The only reason the new second was made to conform to the old second was to maintain backwards compatibility. But from a purely logical perspective, it was not necessary to compare the new clocks with any old clocks. One could simply start from scratch by defining a new unit of time based on the caesium-133 atom.


    They restored the circularity by requiring backwards compatibility with seconds. They must have set the amount of transitions at which a second should tick over. This is equivalent to calibrating the clock.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,475
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    An atomic clock does not need to be calibrated. The caesium-133 atom oscillates at a frequency of 9192631770 Hz and this is the basis of its use as a primary standard. Do not confuse the redefinition of the second with calibration of the clock. The only reason the new second was made to conform to the old second was to maintain backwards compatibility. But from a purely logical perspective, it was not necessary to compare the new clocks with any old clocks. One could simply start from scratch by defining a new unit of time based on the caesium-133 atom.
    They restored the circularity by requiring backwards compatibility with seconds. They must have set the amount of transitions at which a second should tick over. This is equivalent to calibrating the clock.
    No, I said: "To establish a circularity, you need to demonstrate that constructing a clock requires a clock.". It was not necessary to maintain backwards compatibility, one could simply start from scratch by defining a new unit of time based on the caesium-133 atom. In this case, no clock would be required to construct a clock. And even if the new second was made to conform to the old second to maintain backwards compatibility, only the first new clock would require calibration to the old second. Subsequent clocks would not require any clocks because the first new clock has already provided the information that the caesium-133 atom oscillates at a frequency of 9192631770 Hz. But to establish circularity, you need to demonstrate that constructing each and every clock requires a clock, not just the first clock.

    To appreciate this, perhaps it would be helpful to consider an example of a clock whose construction does require a clock. It should be noted that we are considering universal clocks, clocks that can be used anywhere in the universe, not just on earth. The clock to be considered is the pendulum. The period of oscillation of a simple pendulum is:



    where is the length of the pendulum, and is the acceleration field in which the pendulum operates. For the clock to operate anywhere, has to be known. But depends on time, and hence a clock. Note that this circularity applies to every pendulum, not just the first, and that this prevents any pendulum from being a universal clock.

    But the circularity that applies to a pendulum does not apply to an atomic clock, and therefore an atomic clock can be used as a universal clock.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    No, I said: "To establish a circularity, you need to demonstrate that constructing a clock
    requires
    a clock.". It was not necessary to maintain backwards compatibility, one could simply start from scratch by defining a new unit of time based on the caesium-133 atom. In this case, no clock would be required to construct a clock. And even if the new second was made to conform to the old second to maintain backwards compatibility, only the
    first
    new clock would require calibration to the old second. Subsequent clocks would not require any clocks because the first new clock has already provided the information that the caesium-133 atom oscillates at a frequency of 9192631770 Hz. But to establish circularity, you need to demonstrate that constructing each and every clock requires a clock, not just the first clock.
    We have already established that the transitions depend on photons which depend on time. Your talking about frequency requires: oscillations per second, how did they establish the measurement, without a clock?

    A clock that can't be activated is useless.
    Last edited by talanum46; May 18th, 2019 at 04:40 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,297
    Nope, the only thing this thread has established is your bone-headed tendency to ignore anything that shows you are wrong...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,475
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    We have already established that the transitions depend on photons which depend on time.
    I already replied to this in post #20 above, where I said: "Well yeah... it's a clock... of course it depends on time."


    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    Your talking about frequency requires: oscillations per second, how did they establish the measurement?
    By measuring the frequency of the radiation associated with the transition of caesium-133. But they only had to measure this once, not for every atomic clock that is produced. Thus, the clock that was used to measure the frequency is not the clock that establishes a circularity. Actually, the clock that establishes the circularity is the clock that is being constructed, which is needed in order to construct the clock. Perhaps you can explain the problem with circularities, and how measuring the frequency of the radiation associated with the transition of caesium-133 creates that problem. In logic, circularities are akin to paradoxes. But there is nothing like that occurring with the measurement of the frequency of the radiation associated with the transition of caesium-133.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    A clock depends on time and measures time: profound physics should follow.

    To build a mechanical clock requires to measure the spring constant: kx = ma - x, m, a must be measured and this requires a clock.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    A Cesium clock contains an osscilator and a servo mechanism. The osscilator needs to be tested and this requires a clock.
    Last edited by talanum46; May 18th, 2019 at 12:18 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,475
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    A Cesium clock contains an osscilator and a servo mechanism. The osscilator needs to be tested and this requires a clock.
    One problem with your argument is that atomic clocks actually work, so clearly any circularities you think exists isn't actually a problem, so why do you think it is a problem?
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    97
    Yes! This is the question I (and I’m sure many others) have wanted to ask! Why is this calibration (circularity?) of yours a problem for grounding the parameter as a useful one in physics?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    Why is this calibration (circularity?) of yours a problem for grounding the parameter as a useful one in physics?

    Because you then need an infinity of clocks (nature's clocks must also be tested or their physical laws). You need to calibrate clock A with clock B, clock B with clock C etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,475
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    Why is this calibration (circularity?) of yours a problem for grounding the parameter as a useful one in physics?
    Because you then need an infinity of clocks (nature's clocks must also be tested or their physical laws). You need to calibrate clock A with clock B, clock B with clock C etc.
    But that obviously isn't the case with the atomic clocks currently in use.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,222
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    Why is this calibration (circularity?) of yours a problem for grounding the parameter as a useful one in physics?

    Because you then need an infinity of clocks (nature's clocks must also be tested or their physical laws). You need to calibrate clock A with clock B, clock B with clock C etc.
    Wrong
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,475
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    To build a mechanical clock requires to measure the spring constant: kx = ma - x, m, a must be measured and this requires a clock.
    Whether a mechanical clock can be a universal clock is difficult to answer. I'm inclined towards thinking it can't but I'm unsure.

    The reason this thread has my interest is because a number of years ago I had a hypothesis about the nature of universal clocks (clocks that can act as a primary standard of time anywhere in the universe, not just on or near earth). This thread has helped be to refine the principles involved. For example, consider clocks based on nuclear magnetic resonance. If the clock is based on chemical shifts, then because this depends on the strength of the applied magnetic field, which ultimately depends on a time standard, it would not fulfil the requirements of a universal clock. By contrast, if the clock is based on J-coupling constants, then because this is independent of the strength of the applied magnetic field, it does fulfil the requirement of a universal clock, even though a strong magnetic field is still required for the clock to operate.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    What post number helped you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    My paper on defining time is being published in Journal of Advances in Physics. It will be available soon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,222
    Is it? Has it actually been accepted, peer reviewed and has a ,publication date?

    Or have you mearly submitted and not heard back?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,297
    paper on defining time is being published in Journal of Advances in Physics. It will be available soon.
    I don't believe you...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,911
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    My paper on defining time is being published in Journal of Advances in Physics. It will be available soon.
    How much did you pay them to publish it?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,911
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    paper on defining time is being published in Journal of Advances in Physics. It will be available soon.
    I don't believe you...
    It is a pay to publish ("predatory") journal.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,297
    Ah, in that case they'll accept any old shit... I thought he meant this one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advances_in_Physics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,911
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Ah, in that case they'll accept any old shit... I thought he meant this one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advances_in_Physics
    I think they choose names that are very similar to reputable journals. There could be a whole series of them: Advonces in Physics, Advances in Phisycs, etc
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    paper on defining time is being published in Journal of Advances in Physics. It will be available soon.
    I don't believe you...
    It is a pay to publish ("predatory") journal.
    The editorial staff is, shall we say, less than stellar. The EIC boasts that his doctorate is equivalent to "Doctor of Philosophy(Ph.D) in Physics from any Accredited University of USA." That's taken directly from the EIC's personal webpage, under "Education". None of his publications has anything to do with physics.

    The journal's website shows that they'll publish your manuscript for about $100. They do talk about "peer review". No doubt, the peers are equivalent to "any...of USA."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,911
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    The journal's website shows that they'll publish your manuscript for about $100. They do talk about "peer review". No doubt, the peers are equivalent to "any...of USA."
    Some people have deliberately submitted nonsense to journals like this and concluded that "peer review" must consist of showing the manuscript to the office cat (at best).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,297
    I think the "peer review" just makes sure your check or bank transfer has cleared
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    "Or have you mearly submitted and not heard back?"I heard back. They are going to publish in 5 to 7 day's time from yesterday.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,297
    Well if you want to pay 100 bucks to get your silly ideas "published" that's your lookout. It doesn't mean anyone is going to take you seriously...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,835
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    "Or have you mearly submitted and not heard back?"I heard back. They are going to publish in 5 to 7 day's time from yesterday.
    This is the expected result. The check cleared, and the office cat mewed no objections.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,222
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    "Or have you mearly submitted and not heard back?"I heard back. They are going to publish in 5 to 7 day's time from yesterday.
    You do inderstand that you are supporting a predatory journal with no academic standing at all right? You have litterally wasted youre money to damage your reputation more
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    I didn't pay them to accept my paper for publication - that would take hundred-millions. Visit their webpage, it looks decent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,297
    Only if you're an idiot...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,297
    In a predatory journal that will publish any old nonsense...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,222
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    Have you at all done any research into what a predetory journal is? It is not an accepted reputable source of publishing
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    They claim to be a peer reviewed Journal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,911
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    They claim to be a peer reviewed Journal.
    Scammers always claim to be genuine. That is how they convince gullible people to give them money.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    There is no criticism on the content of my definition any more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,297
    Because we know we are wasting our time and you are a loony...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    I defined basic spacetime and time. See below:

    Defining time.

    Willem F. Esterhuyse

    Abstract

    We define Time, not by stating it is what a clock measure, and then describing a clock.

    1. Defining time.

    We start with the required axioms:

    A1: Complex numbers exist.
    A2: x = x
    A3: x + y = y + x
    A4: A is a subset of B if B contains A and B - A not = Empty set

    We have to define a particle, from 4-dimensional space. So define first a complex space: two superimposed copies of the complex plane call this C <-> C (from A1). From C and a copy of C for both C's construct two superimposed Riemann Spheres (RS <-> RS). Identify a circle in RS <-> RS going through the north and south poles of RS <-> RS call this Pp.
    We prove RS <-> RS is a particle: RS <-> RS can have spin and has finite size and can have momentum. Therefore RS <-> RS is a particle.

    Construct physical space as: RxRxR (R is the Real numbers) set this = S_p. Where x = Cartesian Product.

    Define "advance by one of Pp" by "Pp rotates by one unit as measured along the circumference of the circle, let this rotation be a quantum rotation: a rotation from state A to state B without visiting the in between states". The advancement does not move the infinity at the RS <-> RS north poles since: infinity - constant = infinity.

    Let the particle part "Pp" advance by one every time it encounters a space point. Call this "freq" = T_s. Space expands and fluctuates so this does not give a static Pp.

    Now construct changes in freq by: T_sf - T_si. Construct {for all n = 1 toN: n(T_sf -T_si)_n}. Call this changes in freq.

    Define "basic time interval" = Delta t_B = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n=1}^N n(T_SF - T_SI)_n]

    Couple Delta t*_B to every point of S*_p and call the result "basic spacetime"= B_ST.

    Having defined B_ST we can now define time. We need another particle, so define like above a RS <-> RS. Isolate a circle in RS <-> RS going through the north and sout poles and call it Pq. Let Pq advance by one when encounntering a B_ST point. Call this "freq3" = T_BST.

    Construct KxT_BST with k element of Natural numbers. Now we can define tim1 as: "Tim1" = t_1 = 1/[(1/K)(\sum \limits_{n=1}^K n#T_BSTn)].

    If we require Pq is in every particle of the clock, we can prove tim1 = time. This is done by listing the properties of tim1 and comparing these with the properties of time:
    tim1 advances like a clock, it depends on Pq in the clock and on the route in B_ST. This is exactly the properties of time therefore:
    tim1 = time, and we are done.

    In practice we only require that the clock contains particles with circles not containing any left out or added points.

    Bibliography:

    [1] Kotz and Purcell. Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity. Saunders College Publishing, 1987
    [2] Sciforums. Username: NotEinstein.
    [3] Nagashima Y, Elementary Particle Physics. Volume 1: Quantum Field Theory and Particles. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. 2010.
    [4] Hdjensofjfnen, Wikipedia, Internet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion. 2019.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,317
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    I defined basic spacetime and time. See below:

    Defining time.

    Willem F. Esterhuyse

    Abstract

    We define Time, not by stating it is what a clock measure, and then describing a clock.

    1. Defining time.

    We start with the required axioms:

    A1: Complex numbers exist.
    A2: x = x
    A3: x + y = y + x
    A4: A is a subset of B if B contains A and B - A not = Empty set

    We have to define a particle, from 4-dimensional space. So define first a complex space: two superimposed copies of the complex plane call this C <-> C (from A1). From C and a copy of C for both C's construct two superimposed Riemann Spheres (RS <-> RS). Identify a circle in RS <-> RS going through the north and south poles of RS <-> RS call this Pp.
    We prove RS <-> RS is a particle: RS <-> RS can have spin and has finite size and can have momentum. Therefore RS <-> RS is a particle.

    Construct physical space as: RxRxR (R is the Real numbers) set this = S_p. Where x = Cartesian Product.

    Define "advance by one of Pp" by "Pp rotates by one unit as measured along the circumference of the circle, let this rotation be a quantum rotation: a rotation from state A to state B without visiting the in between states". The advancement does not move the infinity at the RS <-> RS north poles since: infinity - constant = infinity.

    Let the particle part "Pp" advance by one every time it encounters a space point. Call this "freq" = T_s. Space expands and fluctuates so this does not give a static Pp.

    Now construct changes in freq by: T_sf - T_si. Construct {for all n = 1 toN: n(T_sf -T_si)_n}. Call this changes in freq.

    Define "basic time interval" = Delta t_B = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n=1}^N n(T_SF - T_SI)_n]

    Couple Delta t*_B to every point of S*_p and call the result "basic spacetime"= B_ST.

    Having defined B_ST we can now define time. We need another particle, so define like above a RS <-> RS. Isolate a circle in RS <-> RS going through the north and sout poles and call it Pq. Let Pq advance by one when encounntering a B_ST point. Call this "freq3" = T_BST.

    Construct KxT_BST with k element of Natural numbers. Now we can define tim1 as: "Tim1" = t_1 = 1/[(1/K)(\sum \limits_{n=1}^K n#T_BSTn)].

    If we require Pq is in every particle of the clock, we can prove tim1 = time. This is done by listing the properties of tim1 and comparing these with the properties of time:
    tim1 advances like a clock, it depends on Pq in the clock and on the route in B_ST. This is exactly the properties of time therefore:
    tim1 = time, and we are done.

    In practice we only require that the clock contains particles with circles not containing any left out or added points.

    Bibliography:

    [1] Kotz and Purcell. Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity. Saunders College Publishing, 1987
    [2] Sciforums. Username: NotEinstein.
    [3] Nagashima Y, Elementary Particle Physics. Volume 1: Quantum Field Theory and Particles. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. 2010.
    [4] Hdjensofjfnen, Wikipedia, Internet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion. 2019.
    Well, there's certainly a good deal of B_ST here.




    One question: where, in what you you have posted here, do you draw on reference [1]? There does not seem to be any chemistry here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    There was time of reactions in it: reaction rate. The particles I intend to define eventually make up chemistry.

    Some of those frogs sits inside the flaps of the box.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,297
    You are certainly making stuff up...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,911
    Noe of the references seem relevant to anything posted. And referencing a username on an Internet forum is particularly moronic.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    87
    I can define basic spacetime and time. See below:

    Defining time.

    Willem F. Esterhuyse

    Abstract

    We define Time, not by stating it is what a clock measure, and then describing a clock.

    1. Defining time.

    We start with the required axioms:

    A1: Complex numbers exist.
    A2: x = x
    A3: x + y = y + x
    A4: A is a subset of B if B contains A and B - A not = Empty set

    We have to define a particle, from 4-dimensional space. So define first a complex space: two superimposed copies of the complex plane call this C <-> C (from A1). From C and a copy of C for both C's construct two superimposed Riemann Spheres (RS <-> RS). Identify a circle in RS <-> RS going through the north and south poles of RS <-> RS call this Pp.

    We prove RS <-> RS is a particle: RS <-> RS can have spin and has finite size and can have momentum. Therefore RS <-> RS is a particle.

    Construct physical space as: RxRxR (R is the Real numbers) set this = S_p. Where x = Cartesian Product.

    Define "advance by one of Pp" by "Pp rotates by one unit as measured along the circumference of the circle, let this rotation be a quantum rotation: a rotation from state A to state B without visiting the in between states". The advancement does not move the infinity at the RS <-> RS north poles since: infinity - constant = infinity.

    Let the particle part "Pp" advance by one every time it encounters a space point. Call this "freq" = T_s. Space expands and fluctuates so this does not give a static Pp.

    Now construct changes in freq by: T_sf - T_si. Construct {for all n = 1 toN: n(T_sf -T_si)_n}. Call this changes in freq.

    Define "basic time interval" = Delta t_B = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n=1}^N n(T_SF - T_SI)_n]

    Couple Delta t*_B to every point of S*_p and call the result "basic spacetime"= B_ST.

    Having defined B_ST we can now define time. We need another particle, so define like above a RS <-> RS. Isolate a circle in RS <-> RS going through the north and sout poles and call it Pq. Let Pq advance by one when encounntering a B_ST point. Call this "freq3" = T_BST.

    Construct KxT_BST with k element of Natural numbers. Now we can define tim1 as: "Tim1" = t_1 = 1/[(1/K)(\sum \limits_{n=1}^K n#T_BSTn)].

    If we require Pq is in every particle of the clock, we can prove tim1 = time. This is done by listing the properties of tim1 and comparing these with the properties of time:
    tim1 advances like a clock, it depends on Pq in the clock and on the route in B_ST. This is exactly the properties of time therefore:

    tim1 = time, and we are done.

    In practice we only require that the clock contains particles with circles not containing any left out or added points.

    Bibliography:

    [1] Kotz and Purcell. Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity. Saunders College Publishing, 1987
    [2] Sciforums. Username: NotEinstein.
    [3] Nagashima Y, Elementary Particle Physics. Volume 1: Quantum Field Theory and Particles. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. 2010.
    [4] Hdjensofjfnen, Wikipedia, Internet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion. 2019.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,297
    Repeating bullshit doesn't make it true...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,317
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    I can define basic spacetime and time. See below:

    Defining time.

    Willem F. Esterhuyse

    Abstract

    We define Time, not by stating it is what a clock measure, and then describing a clock.

    1. Defining time.

    We start with the required axioms:

    A1: Complex numbers exist.
    A2: x = x
    A3: x + y = y + x
    A4: A is a subset of B if B contains A and B - A not = Empty set

    We have to define a particle, from 4-dimensional space. So define first a complex space: two superimposed copies of the complex plane call this C <-> C (from A1). From C and a copy of C for both C's construct two superimposed Riemann Spheres (RS <-> RS). Identify a circle in RS <-> RS going through the north and south poles of RS <-> RS call this Pp.

    We prove RS <-> RS is a particle: RS <-> RS can have spin and has finite size and can have momentum. Therefore RS <-> RS is a particle.

    Construct physical space as: RxRxR (R is the Real numbers) set this = S_p. Where x = Cartesian Product.

    Define "advance by one of Pp" by "Pp rotates by one unit as measured along the circumference of the circle, let this rotation be a quantum rotation: a rotation from state A to state B without visiting the in between states". The advancement does not move the infinity at the RS <-> RS north poles since: infinity - constant = infinity.

    Let the particle part "Pp" advance by one every time it encounters a space point. Call this "freq" = T_s. Space expands and fluctuates so this does not give a static Pp.

    Now construct changes in freq by: T_sf - T_si. Construct {for all n = 1 toN: n(T_sf -T_si)_n}. Call this changes in freq.

    Define "basic time interval" = Delta t_B = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n=1}^N n(T_SF - T_SI)_n]

    Couple Delta t*_B to every point of S*_p and call the result "basic spacetime"= B_ST.

    Having defined B_ST we can now define time. We need another particle, so define like above a RS <-> RS. Isolate a circle in RS <-> RS going through the north and sout poles and call it Pq. Let Pq advance by one when encounntering a B_ST point. Call this "freq3" = T_BST.

    Construct KxT_BST with k element of Natural numbers. Now we can define tim1 as: "Tim1" = t_1 = 1/[(1/K)(\sum \limits_{n=1}^K n#T_BSTn)].

    If we require Pq is in every particle of the clock, we can prove tim1 = time. This is done by listing the properties of tim1 and comparing these with the properties of time:
    tim1 advances like a clock, it depends on Pq in the clock and on the route in B_ST. This is exactly the properties of time therefore:

    tim1 = time, and we are done.

    In practice we only require that the clock contains particles with circles not containing any left out or added points.

    Bibliography:

    [1] Kotz and Purcell. Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity. Saunders College Publishing, 1987
    [2] Sciforums. Username: NotEinstein.
    [3] Nagashima Y, Elementary Particle Physics. Volume 1: Quantum Field Theory and Particles. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. 2010.
    [4] Hdjensofjfnen, Wikipedia, Internet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion. 2019.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. constructing a hypothesis for new space-time axioms
    By theQuestIsNotOver in forum Physics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 1st, 2019, 08:15 AM
  2. Constructing transcendental numbers
    By anticorncob28 in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 5th, 2019, 10:35 PM
  3. Constructing Society
    By Schizo in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 7th, 2008, 10:15 PM
  4. More on the Peano axioms
    By JaneBennet in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: September 9th, 2008, 06:17 PM
  5. Axioms
    By thyristor in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: August 13th, 2008, 08:47 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •