Isn't time a measurement of motion?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I agree, so why pretend your fallacy of treating a velocity term they told you wasn’t to be construed as an actually velocity is anything other than a fallacy?

This is a strawman, as has already been explained.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

See none for you.....

I figured you could handle looking up Maxwells equations and electromagnetic radiation on your own. Apparently I was wrong. Why am I not surprised......

As I understand it, electromagnetic radiation, and so Maxwell's equations, are only involved in gamma decay, and then only after the decay has occurred.

For simplicity, let's assume gamma decay is not involved in the decay of the isotope in question. How is movement of the atom involved in the decay? and what citations do you have for that?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But to forstall more avoidance tactics.....

Electromagnetic radiation - Wikipedia

“Electromagnetic waves are emitted by electrically charged particles undergoing acceleration”

There’s your citation that you didn’t understand despite the claim of understanding physics....

I have no issues with that. I'm querying your assertion that radioactive decay is the result of movement of the atom.

 

[SelfSim]

Except for the magic expansion of space that only happens way out that a way and couldn’t be measured even if you were there because you’d be moving with the expansion.

So we agree, expansion fails the testability required by science and is pseudoscience.

No ... accelerating expansion of space is measured by cosmological redshift.

 

[SelfSim]

But those pendulum swings that constitute one second vary as velocity increases. You just keep calling the new distance it travels a second, even if not the same as before.... and so you are not really testing time as the device you use to measure it is not constant itself. You are simply unable to observe the changes because everything in the frame is changing as well.

Show me some objective test which returns data that leads to no other conclusion than time exists independently from the concept of 'time' we consistently operationally measure in science.
If you are unable to do this (as I predict), then I'll take it that your entire thesis relies solely on your mere belief in that, which is underpinned by nothing more than your untestable assumption that it does .. which is dismissable in science, alongside all other untestable beliefs.

They are all concepts .. and objectivity in science, requires agreement amongst scientifically thinking people. I see such agreement amongst scientific thinkers in this thread, (for eg), when it comes to science's definition of time. I see no such agreement with the way you are thinking. You are thus not thinking scientifically .. thus you cannot rely on science's concept of objectivity in order to support your notions.
(I suspect your choice in doing this is deliberate .. done in order to emphasise you non-objective opinions .. which in turn also renders it a scientifically meaningless and useless choice).

 

[sjastro]

Because you can’t comprehend the sound wave striking a molecule of air and loosing energy due to that encounter, hence Doppler and the eventual extinction of the sound wave.

So you are confused about what is actually happening when the atom recoils in either the backwards motion or forward motion.

But physics has already explained this, you just don’t understand physics.....

Sound is a vibration of molecules.

Contemplate on that for awhile, maybe you’ll figure it out.....

While you are giving me a lecture on what I supposedly don’t understand, you are blissfully unaware your explanation only considers the possibility of a sound or light wave losing energy and not the case where energy is gained and blue shift occurs.
For someone who demonstrates they lack the intellectual capacity for understanding science your continual put down of everyone else lacking the intelligence is an irony overload.

Except no Doppler has been observed in a lab without molecules being present.

So you want to perpetrate this bald faced lie.

The formula for the Doppler shift Δλ of light is given by the equation:
Δλ = vλ₀/c
v is the velocity of the source, λ₀ is the wavelength and c is the velocity of light in a vacuum.
If Doppler shift does depend on a medium then why is the velocity of light in a vacuum defined?

Furthermore how does Doppler spectroscopy of distant planets work when the light that reaches us traverses space where the particle number density is equivalent to the high laboratory vacuums?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is a strawman, as has already been explained.

Shall we go back and quote your explanation which was a relativistic velocity correction despite being told not to confuse it as a velocity, relativistic or not.....

The fallacy is the one you are continuing to try to perpetuate upon the readers.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I have no issues with that. I'm querying your assertion that radioactive decay is the result of movement of the atom.

Because you don’t understand that radioactive decay is due to energy loss.....

It’s binding energy is unstable from loss of energy due to the atom emitting energy in the form of EM waves...... or photons if you prefer...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No ... accelerating expansion of space is measured by cosmological redshift.

Except cosmological redshift is not due to the velocity of emitter or source. And there is no laboratory correlation between redshift and expansion. Not the least of which observations are in opposition to that hypothesis....

The redshift is due to the interaction of photons with particles in space.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Show me some objective test which returns data that leads to no other conclusion than time exists independently from the concept of 'time' we consistently operationally measure in science.
If you are unable to do this (as I predict), then I'll take it that your entire thesis relies solely on your mere belief in that, which is underpinned by nothing more than your untestable assumption that it does .. which is dismissable in science, alongside all other untestable beliefs.

They are all concepts .. and objectivity in science, requires agreement amongst scientifically thinking people. I see such agreement amongst scientific thinkers in this thread, (for eg), when it comes to science's definition of time. I see no such agreement with the way you are thinking. You are thus not thinking scientifically .. thus you cannot rely on science's concept of objectivity in order to support your notions.
(I suspect your choice in doing this is deliberate .. done in order to emphasise you non-objective opinions .. which in turn also renders it a scientifically meaningless and useless choice).

You already have it by understanding time is not the same in all frames, due simply to the movement of the measuring device. Be it at the pole or equator or in an airplane or a GPS satellite.

Not the least it has no one definition....

Definition of Time – Exactly What Is Time?

So what is time but the distance a pendulum swings or a second hand moves, or the distance between crests of EM waves from the oscillation of a cesium atom.

Without movement their is no time.......

Need we get into math in which you can not divide two unrelated things? You can’t divide gallons by quarts without first converting one to the other....

So since you can divide distance by time without converting, they are related....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

While you are giving me a lecture on what I supposedly don’t understand, you are blissfully unaware your explanation only considers the possibility of a sound or light wave losing energy and not the case where energy is gained and blue shift occurs.
For someone who demonstrates they lack the intellectual capacity for understanding science your continual put down of everyone else lacking the intelligence is an irony overload.

I stated no possibility, merely relayed fact.

Since you can comprehend what would cause redshift, movement of the electron away from the direction of travel, think for awhile what the opposite would be....

But then that’s why they have no answer for the redshift of the suns photosphere. Unless your claiming the sun is constantly moving away from us?

So you want to perpetrate this bald faced lie.

The formula for the Doppler shift Δλ of light is given by the equation:
Δλ = vλ₀/c
v is the velocity of the source, λ₀ is the wavelength and c is the velocity of light in a vacuum.
If Doppler shift does depend on a medium then why is the velocity of light in a vacuum defined?

Furthermore how does Doppler spectroscopy of distant planets work when the light that reaches us traverses space where the particle number density is equivalent to the high laboratory vacuums?

Based upon who’s claim of particle density?

The same ones who were off by a factor of 30 right next door cosmologically speaking?

Ulysses (spacecraft) - Wikipedia

• Data provided by Ulysses led to the discovery that dust coming into the Solar System from deep space was 30 times more abundant than previously expected.

So the fact they couldn’t even get close to the amount of matter right next door, leads to little confidence they have it any more correct hundreds of light years distant.

But here you are, expecting me to buy into quantity claims that have already been falsified.....

And we haven’t even begun to discuss those plasma halos of at a minimum of twice the mass of the galaxy surrounding every light source.......

But seriously, if they were off by a factor of 30 about a light day distant, convince me they got it correct hundreds of light years distant????????

 

[SelfSim]

You already have it by understanding time is not the same in all frames, due simply to the movement of the measuring device. Be it at the pole or equator or in an airplane or a GOS satellite.

Not the least it has no one definition....

Definition of Time – Exactly What Is Time?

So what is time but the distance a pendulum swings or a second hand moves, or the distance between crests of EM waves from the oscillation of a cesium atom.

Without movement their is no time.......

.. he says whilst totally ignoring scientific objectivity:

I see no such agreement with the way you are thinking. You are thus not thinking scientifically.. thus you cannot rely on science's concept of objectivity in order to support your notions.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

.. he says whilst totally ignoring scientific objectivity:

I’m the only one thinking scientifically and being objective. You can’t divide gallons by quarts without converting. Since you can divide distance by time without conversion, they must already be related.....

 

[dad]

You don’t have to travel anywhere. The subatomic parts of the atoms in your body are in constant motion giving off electromagnetic radiation. This loss of energy causes them to decay.

Interesting, so the length of man's life depends on the nature that exists.

However, if you were to increase your velocity substantially and maintain it, the increase in energy would slow your decay rate.

As long as the realities we know on earth and area continued to exist. Basically as long as you stay within a light day or so. Beyond that, we don't know.

Correct, clocks measure the movement of themselves which we call time, but are not time. Are subject to that which we call time, which is merely a second distance measurement.

I notice also that all things including what is in light from the stars are measured here in our time.

I could have you walk in a circle or even a straight line with marks placed equally apart every such distance and call you a clock, but the distance you traveled would still not be you.....

Correct.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Interesting, so the length of man's life depends on the nature that exists.

Of course, that’s the physical laws God put into place.

As long as the realities we know on earth and area continued to exist. Basically as long as you stay within a light day or so. Beyond that, we don't know.

They are the same everywhere. Those distant galaxies are just moving faster and so time is different for them.

I notice also that all things including what is in light from the stars are measured here in our time.

You would measure them in our time if you were in another distant galaxy. You would just be calling a different duration tick of time a second.....

Just like someone at the pole calls his duration tick of time a second even if it is of a different duration than what someone at the equator calls a second. We are simply unable to tell when our clocks change and so call them seconds regardless of their duration.

 

[SelfSim]

I’m the only one thinking scientifically and being objective.

Congratulations .. in that statement, you just defeated your own argument.
The past count of your doing this is now beyond measure.
Hilarious!
Objectivity:

Objectivity in science is an attempt to uncover truths about the natural world by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs.[1] It is often linked to observation as part of the scientific method. It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility. To be considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person to person, and then demonstrated for third parties, as an advance in a collective understanding of the world. Such demonstrable knowledge has ordinarily conferred demonstrable powers of prediction or technology.

You can’t divide gallons by quarts without converting. Since you can divide distance by time without conversion, they must already be related.....

Good grief!!!!
Word salad ... totally bereft of meaning.

 

[dad]

Of course, that’s the physical laws God put into place.

Yet the physical laws in Noah's day saw people living more than ten times longer.

They are the same everywhere. Those distant galaxies are just moving faster and so time is different for them.

How can you tell from here they take so much time to move there?

You would measure them in our time if you were in another distant galaxy. You would just be calling a different duration tick of time a second.....

If there was no time there I probably would not think of it in earth time.

Just like someone at the pole calls his duration tick of time a second even if it is of a different duration than what someone at the equator calls a second. We are simply unable to tell when our clocks change and so call them seconds regardless of their duration.

The difference being that we know that time is the same at both poles.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Shall we go back and quote your explanation which was a relativistic velocity correction despite being told not to confuse it as a velocity, relativistic or not.....

The fallacy is the one you are continuing to try to perpetuate upon the readers.....

This has already been explained.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Because you don’t understand that radioactive decay is due to energy loss.....

It’s binding energy is unstable from loss of energy due to the atom emitting energy in the form of EM waves...... or photons if you prefer...

I understand that radioactive decay involves energy loss, that's obvious. Only gamma decay involves EM waves as already explained, and I suggested we deal with radioactive decay of other kinds.

Rather than throwing out red herrings, just address the question - I'm querying your assertion that radioactive decay is the result of movement of the atom.

My larger point is that it's very easy to make some superficially appealing statement like, "...time is nothing but the measurement of distance.", but a good scientist will think it through by questioning its limits and looking for ways to falsify it.

Anyone who's done high-school physics knows that time is more than just a measurement of distance -some specified velocity is required, since time = distance/velocity, but let's assume that what was really meant is something like measurement of time always involves movement over some distance.

However, radioactive decay can be used to measure time, but as it's a stochastic quantum phenomenon, it doesn't appear to involve measurement of distance or movement over some distance.

There are other ways to measure time that don't obviously involve the measurement of distance - consider a photograph lying in the sun, slowly fading - you can tell how long it's been in the sun by how much it's faded... it's another stochastic phenomenon; what measurement of distance, or movement over some distance, is involved?

It would appear that the measurement of time does not always involve measurement of distance...

Do these examples falsify the original statement? if not, why not?

 

[sjastro]

I’m the only one thinking scientifically and being objective.

What a perfect intro into the following YouTube………..

You can’t divide gallons by quarts without converting. Since you can divide distance by time without conversion, they must already be related.....

Gallons and quarts are both dimensionally L³.
Divide distance which has the dimensional unit L by time which has the dimensional unit T you get velocity which is LT⁻¹.
Time and distance are base units, they are not related as they cannot be expressed as a combination like velocity, otherwise explain how I can measure time with a ruler or distance with a stopwatch.