Harry Veeder wrote: > You mean the general phenomena of 'motion' rather than velocity. > Yes. I've said velocity to be able to write the formula: t=s/v First it comes motion, and after that we can talk about rate of motion(i.e. velocity) and from then on we can talk about time.
Incidentally, that's probably the reason why the second(the unit of time) is called that way. Please note that when we observe or measure time, we always do it indirectly. In an analog clock, what we observe is displacement of the small hands, at a given fixed angular velocity. A digital clock, although not so obvious, is similar, because a digital clock depends on an oscillator. And we know that an oscillation is produced from (and is equivalent to) a rotation. So again what we are observing is angular displacement, at a given angular velocity. So, time is in reality a compound unit. A unit of displacement per unit of velocity. This is probably not obvious to us because we have made velocity the compound unit. But that can be changed. We can define the unit of velocity, let's say, the /velox/, and from then on define the second as /meters per velox/. We can define the velox in an equivalente way as the SI second is defined. And this is straightforward. First it is convenient to define the /angular velox/. By example: The angular velox is 1 / /x/ times the angular velocity of the electron spin. That is, it is an angular velocity such that when the electron has completed x revolutions around its spin axis, our unit velox vector has completed one around its own. >From then on, the linear velox, or velox for short, can be defined as a velocity such that when our unit velox vector has completed one revolution around its axis, our unit linear velox point has displaced 1 meter over a straight line. Alternatively, we can define the linear velox as the absolute value or modulus of the tangential velocity of our unit angular velox vector, with a radius r=1/(2*pi). Now, our unit second is defined as the time that it takes to displace something 1 meter at a velocity of 1 velox. All this "confussion" comes probably from the influence of the calculus, where we define velocity as the derivative of motion respect to time. That is a great achievement, and a very powerful mathematical technique, but nevertheless we must not forget that, regarding the reality of the subyacent physical processes, we're "grasping at straws", so to speak, when doing that. > Harry > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mauro Lacy <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, May 22, 2009 11:51 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE > > >>> >>> >> Velocity does not need to be measured to exist. I'm talking about the >> intrinsic physical existence of movement, not about measurements. And >> what you say is anyways probably not true: you can measure velocity >> comparing it to other velocities, by example. Like in "those two >> velocities are equal", or "that velocity is 2 times that other >> velocity". >> >> > > >
