Jones Beene wrote: > Mauro, > > Although I do not completely disagree with anything you say, you still have > not made a good case for the assertion that "velocity (motion)" is more > basic, as an underlying measurement standard - or prime-variable, than is > "time". > > In every case you site, you are in effect eliminating 'relativity' > considerations by injecting the POV of a preferred viewer. > > For instance, when you say: > > "Please note that when we observe or measure time, we always do it > indirectly." > > Not exactly true ! Or at least it is the same situation when we observe and > measure space, since we also do that indirectly as well. Any observer must > depend on physical inputs - inputs that either the viewer instigates, or > else the viewer receives - such as reflected photons. >
When we measure space, we measure space, that is, we measure the underlying physical reality we know as space. There's a POV, and a measurement process, of course, but there's also something underlyingly real(altough as I've said, this is also debatable in the case of space) that we're measuring. When we measure time, we measure displacement in space at a certain velocity. There's no such quantity as time, physically. We are not measuring any intrinsic physical property, but abstracting a value from other physical properties(movement.) That's what I meant with 'indirectly'. Not the indirection that results from the measurement process, but the one that results of deducting time taking as a basis changes in displacement, that is, taking as a basis other physical properties. We later on attribute reality to this abstraction, which is incorrect, physically speaking. > You must eliminate the local viewer - in order to make the case for what is > to be the most basic variable in our mental understanding of "how to measure > anything." And of course that is hard to do, in the abstract. > > But all-in-all, let's step back a moment. Isn't this exercise little more > than a "tempest in a teapot"? > It is, in a sense, but it's not in another(epistemological). More about that below. > I mean- what are the furthest implications which you could imagine for the > correct answer, even if there were one? > The furthest implications are that you have no right in physics, epistemologically speaking, to talk about relative time scales, or which is the same, time dimensions. You can do it, of course, but epistemologically speaking, you'll be not doing good, sound physics. The best thing you can do regarding time in your physical model, is to define an absolute time(because that's what time is, a mere abstraction with no real existence) If you do that, the other real physical properties will reflect the underlying changes to which they are subjected. That is, you will not be masking the reality of the physical processes under time distortions and correlations of your reference frames. It's better if you stick to putting 't=0' in all your reference frames (that is, if you define 'now', 'instant' and 'instantaneously' independently of the velocity of anything) and later take the real consequences of the observed physical phenomena. That way, your physical model will be more according to reality. > OK - moving on... > > And being one who like to indulge in meaningless trivia on occasion - and > for the sake of argument, I will contend that only with "time" as the prime > and most basic variable - is the local viewer and his particular POV most > nearly eliminated. > > This is because the universe does contains it own mechanism for gauging > "duration" accurately, a "universal clock" if you will; and this functions > to eliminate the local POV of any viewer throughout the entire expanse of > space. > > That mechanism can be reduced to the standard "clock" with a ticking rate of > 1420 MHz - and is timed precisely by the spin isomers of hydrogen; and most > importantly is available everywhere in the Universe, independent of POV. > That's incorrect, as I've showed before. Frequency is again not a direct measure of something physical called time, but of a number of cycles(rotations) during a *given* duration of time. It is a consequence of rotation, which is a result of angular velocity, which is the real underlying physical process(i.e. circular *movement* around a center, at a certain *velocity*(rate of displacement.)) > The ball is now in your court. > > Jones > > > >
