# Thread: Dali on relativity ?

1. There is a famous painting made by spanish painter Dali where you see a variety of disformed clocks. Possibly or presumably Dali's comment on ideas of relativity like disforming of timespace etc that took a lot of attention in those days.

On that painting all clocks are on different hights, one in a tree, one on a table and one on the ground. Because for each clock gravity is assumed different, they all will run different ; "in their own time".
Assuming the clocks would really work, a spectator looking at the painting would see one clock run faster then the other.
Or imagine the painting as a laboratory of a scientist, the clocks available in the laboratory are all cesium clocks and the scientist is doing a variety of experiments that he wants to registrate in formula,s measurements etc using the second as a unity.
But as the clocks are all different (running different)
Which clock should the scientist use for defining the second?

2.

3. Originally Posted by Ghrasp
There is a famous painting made by spanish painter Dali where you see a variety of disformed clocks. Possibly or presumably Dali's comment on ideas of relativity like disforming of timespace etc that took a lot of attention in those days.

On that painting all clocks are on different hights, one in a tree, one on a table and one on the ground. Because for each clock gravity is assumed different, they all will run different ; "in their own time".
Assuming the clocks would really work, a spectator looking at the painting would see one clock run faster then the other.
Or imagine the painting as a laboratory of a scientist, the clocks available in the laboratory are all cesium clocks and the scientist is doing a variety of experiments that he wants to registrate in formula,s measurements etc using the second as a unity.
But as the clocks are all different (running different)
Which clock should the scientist use for defining the second?
Time is a local thing. A scientist would therefore use the clock on his wrist to define time at his particular location.

4. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Time is a local thing. A scientist would therefore use the clock on his wrist to define time at his particular location.
Time is an arbitary convention. It has no true existance. What you see on a clock has absolutely no meaning to the untrained eye. I know you will disagree on this because theories such as Special Relativity will make you believe otherwise, but think about that one. The amount of times an event happens is real, because a second hand on a clock obviously makes revolutions. This is where "time" comes in. We call one of those revolutions a minute, which does not truly exist, because we defined it, it was an arbitary selection. This is indeed a very useful tool for measurement and comparing the durations of events, but we must not forget that what we refer to as "time" still is nothing more than a selection we made.

In terms of relativity, the faster you go, time does not slow down. The clocks just simply make less revolutions compared to another at rest.

5. Time is a local thing. A scientist would therefore use the clock on his wrist to define time at his particular location.
Even if it,s on his wrist he can never be where the clock is at the same moment, he is not the clock or vice versa. Cesiumclocks are also not worn on the wrist to my knowledge.

6. Originally Posted by Waveman28
Time is an arbitary convention. It has no true existance. What you see on a clock has absolutely no meaning to the untrained eye. I know you will disagree on this because theories such as Special Relativity will make you believe otherwise, but think about that one. The amount of times an event happens is real, because a second hand on a clock obviously makes revolutions. This is where "time" comes in. We call one of those revolutions a minute, which does not truly exist, because we defined it, it was an arbitary selection. This is indeed a very useful tool for measurement and comparing the durations of events, but we must not forget that what we refer to as "time" still is nothing more than a selection we made.

In terms of relativity, the faster you go, time does not slow down. The clocks just simply make less revolutions compared to another at rest.
Wait, if time is an arbitrary convention, why doesn't it slow down? In the convention it does.

What exactly is your problem? A meter is also an arbitrary length, a kilogram is an arbitrary weight and a coulomb an arbitrary charge. So none of those exist?

7. even though the clock and the person don't share the same space & time they might share the surface of the earth - doesn't this work to allow them to define a similar time frame?

I think Waveman may have been talking of a 'universal' time where two clocks in question might share an existance in the same universe but experience different time frames? - that might contradict the whole space-time thing (space being universal existance) but it makes sense to me! :-D

8. Originally Posted by Waveman28
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Time is a local thing. A scientist would therefore use the clock on his wrist to define time at his particular location.
Time is an arbitary convention. It has no true existance. What you see on a clock has absolutely no meaning to the untrained eye. I know you will disagree on this because theories such as Special Relativity will make you believe otherwise, but think about that one. The amount of times an event happens is real, because a second hand on a clock obviously makes revolutions. This is where "time" comes in. We call one of those revolutions a minute, which does not truly exist, because we defined it, it was an arbitary selection. This is indeed a very useful tool for measurement and comparing the durations of events, but we must not forget that what we refer to as "time" still is nothing more than a selection we made.

In terms of relativity, the faster you go, time does not slow down. The clocks just simply make less revolutions compared to another at rest.
Utter rubbish.

Your record remains utterly consistent. You have misunderstood mis-stated every principle of physics known to mankind.

Frankly, you are a menace to the naive.

9. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by Waveman28
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Time is a local thing. A scientist would therefore use the clock on his wrist to define time at his particular location.
Time is an arbitary convention. It has no true existance. What you see on a clock has absolutely no meaning to the untrained eye. I know you will disagree on this because theories such as Special Relativity will make you believe otherwise, but think about that one. The amount of times an event happens is real, because a second hand on a clock obviously makes revolutions. This is where "time" comes in. We call one of those revolutions a minute, which does not truly exist, because we defined it, it was an arbitary selection. This is indeed a very useful tool for measurement and comparing the durations of events, but we must not forget that what we refer to as "time" still is nothing more than a selection we made.

In terms of relativity, the faster you go, time does not slow down. The clocks just simply make less revolutions compared to another at rest.
Utter rubbish.

Your record remains utterly consistent. You have misunderstood mis-stated every principle of physics known to mankind.

Frankly, you are a menace to the naive.
lol - might make good logic but not good physics!!!!

10. even though the clock and the person don't share the same space & time they might share the surface of the earth - doesn't this work to allow them to define a similar time frame?
During formulating this reaction imagine I,m wearing a cesiumclock as a ring on one of my fingers. Another one I where around my neck as a necklace....When I keep doing this a little longer my hand and finger (tapping the keyboard) will be older then my neck and brain. My finger and neck they live in different timefames. What should I do ? Not move anymore and have eternal live or move and grow up.
(Irony)

11. A fysics poem

So by the time I will be dead
my foot will be older then my head.
both exist in a different timeframe.
Exept when I'm in bed.

A willow
it,s brenches, just the same
are older then it,s roots
In Einsteins name.

 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement