Isn't time a measurement of motion?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... time is nothing but the measurement of distance.

What distance measurement is involved when you time events by the half-life of an isotope?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes ... really.
Every scientific concept must have an operational definition .. the operational definition can use both direct observations and latent variables.

Time:

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.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

.. word salad ..

A belief is any notion taken as being true .. for any reason.
However, I equated the 'truth' of Relativity as being only as good as the last best tested Relativity theory .. (or objective test results).
Thus there is no need to believe it, (as in an unevidenced assumption is simply believed), when there are consistent objective results produced from the last best test of it.

Both of my two responses are complementary .. and consistent.

Not word salad, truth....

And such is why Relativity is 99.8% correct inside the solar system with no other ad-hoc theory needed, but needs rescued by adding 96% ad-hoc theory outside of the solar system.....

Because it has failed by 96% outside the solar system, the last best test of its validity. It has only passed tests in the solar system...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No; that was also explained.

Yah, you continued to argue for a velocity while being told it wasn’t to be confused as a real velocity.

If you call that an explanation I can see why you are so confused....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What distance measurement is involved when you time events by the half-life of an isotope?

The distance the atoms are moving in the given time it takes for the decay.

Those atoms are not sitting stationary. It is their movement that causes loss of energy to radiation, hence decay.....

So how many vibrations of the atom does it take to produce one decay????? And the distance traveled during the vibration.

Hence when you accelerate an isotope it gains energy and decays slower as the energy gained offsets the energy lost to entropy.

Hence clocks slow and twins age less....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yah, you continued to argue for a velocity while being told it wasn’t to be confused as a real velocity.

I already explained this.

If you call that an explanation I can see why you are so confused....

Lol, I'm not the one who keeps picking at it like an itchy scab...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The distance the atoms are moving in the given time it takes for the decay.

Those atoms are not sitting stationary. It is their movement that causes loss of energy to radiation, hence decay.....

Citation for radioactive decay being due to movement of the atom?

So how many vibrations of the atom does it take to produce one decay????? And the distance traveled during the vibration.

The decay of any individual atom is stochastic.

 

[tas8831]

It is their movement that causes loss of energy to radiation, hence decay......

Wow...

That is almost as good as your claim that new "allies" are produced by the interactions of two different genomes during reproduction, or that the mating of two identical Arabs produced all of the different "races" without mutation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I already explained this.

Lol, I'm not the one who keeps picking at it like an itchy scab...

Im not the one who’s only argument was a velocity argument while being told not to confuse it as being an actual velocity and then can’t admit he was wrong when he keeps thinking if it as velocity....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wow...

That is almost as good as your claim that new "allies" are produced by the interactions of two different genomes during reproduction, or that the mating of two identical Arabs produced all of the different "races" without mutation.

For one they probably weren’t Arabs, anymore than a Husky is a wolf.

But you mean produced all the different races like wolves produced over 100 different breeds of dogs? Similar to that?

And yet you find a mere 12 to 15 different races difficult to comprehend? Lol..... if you say so.... if you say so..... I guess ignoring the reality of mating to produce different races or breeds within the species helps you retain your false mutation belief....

But good strawman to shift away from your Fairie Dust of expanding space....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Citation for radioactive decay being due to movement of the atom?

The decay of any individual atom is stochastic.

Are you really unaware that all radiation is emitted due to the electromagnetic principles of movement???????

Really, you are going to pretend you don’t know this???

Look up Maxwells equations, then contemplate radioactive decay due to energy loss....

 

[dad]

Yes ... really.
Every scientific concept must have an operational definition .. the operational definition can use both direct observations and latent variables.

Time:

Ridiculous cop out. 'Gee, since we are admittedly clueless as to what time actually is, we will simply leave that out, and talk only aout how we see time unfold and work'

Hahahaha

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Im not the one who’s only argument was a velocity argument while being told not to confuse it as being an actual velocity and then can’t admit he was wrong when he keeps thinking if it as velocity....

Repeating a strawman argument won't make it correct. A fallacy is a fallacy.

 

[dad]

Because their models are flawed and speak of time as a 4th dimension, when time is nothing but the measurement of distance.

When you say time is...nothing but the measure of distance...is that what you think it is, or what you are saying they think it is? Seems to me time is a lot more than that. How far do I have to travel to get old? If I travel less do I stay young..etc....?

Whether that is the distance the Earth travels around the sun to return to its starting point that we call a year, the distance a point on the surface of the Earth travels to return to its starting point we call a day, or the distance a hand on a clock moves to complete one revolution we call an hour, or the distance a hand moves in the 60 subdivisions of the distance we called an hour that we call a minute, or the distance a hand moves in the 60 subdivisions of the distance we called a minute that we call a second. Or the distance between wave crests of electromagnetic waves from the oscillation of a cesium atom.

It is simply a second measurement of distance to confirm our first measurement of distance.

In other words the clocks are not time, but a way man is the fishbowl measures the unfolding or passing of time. Clocks measure or mark time, they of course are not time itself.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you really unaware that all radiation is emitted due to the electromagnetic principles of movement???????

Really, you are going to pretend you don’t know this???

So, no citation... why am I not surprised?

 

[Steve Petersen]

.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Repeating a strawman argument won't make it correct. A fallacy is a fallacy.

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?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So, no citation... why am I not surprised?

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......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When you say time is...nothing but the measure of distance...is that what you think it is, or what you are saying they think it is? Seems to me time is a lot more than that. How far do I have to travel to get old? If I travel less do I stay young..etc....?

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.

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

Hence clocks tick slower and twins age less. As do astronauts in orbit due to their velocity, but that is minuscule.

In other words the clocks are not time, but a way man is the fishbowl measures the unfolding or passing of time. Clocks measure or mark time, they of course are not time itself.

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 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.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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....