Isn't time a measurement of motion?

[Justatruthseeker]

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

Is that your avoidance of the fact that things must be related in order to be divided? You can’t divide quarts by gallons without converting. No conversion is necessary when dividing distance by time so they are already related...

Try to sidestep the math with double-talk. That’s fine.

So the one that refuses to consider any other definition but the one he put forward now chooses to try to lecture me on objectivity....

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

And yet every mathematician will tell you quarts cannot be divided by gallons without converting.

You’re attempted diversion to avoid the truth is disappointing....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

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.

Your clock is a ruler, equally divided into 12 units equally divided into 60, equally divided into 60 again.

Your stopwatch is a ruler..... equally divided into.......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What fact; you can’t even keep your facts straight within a single post.
Have you already forgotten your own link?
The Doppler Effect
Note the article refers to neutral hydrogen atoms as the medium not electrons.

Apparently you are unaware that electrons are in hydrogen and according to theory it is the electron that absorbs and emits photons...

Do you really need to try so hard to avoid the truth you ignore standard physics?????

Unlike electrons neutral hydrogen atoms don’t emit electromagnetic radiation when accelerated so you can’t use the nonsense of suggesting the direction of electromagnetic radiation explains blueshift.

All photons interacting with electrons impart their momentum to the electron or have momentum imparted to them.....

Standard EM theory as well as quantum electrodynamics...

Maxwell’s equations predict that radiation is emitted as a consequence of the change of velocity (acceleration) of the electron impinged on, due to momentum transfer. That point has been taken into account in quantum electrodynamics as explained by Jauch and Rohrlich who show that such a phenomenon always exists, as seen in their statement:
"This bremsstrahlung or deceleration radiation with the emission of a single photon is a well defined process only within certain limits: The simultaneous emission of very soft photons – too soft to be observed within the accuracy of the energy determination of the incident outgoing electron – can never be excluded. In fact, this radiation is always present even in the so-called elastic scattering ."

J. M. Jauch and F. Rohrlich, The Theory of Photons and Electrons, Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, Mass.

You couldn’t explain blueshift in the context of the link so predictably decide to change the goalposts.

Who’s changing the goalposts but you by ignoring those electrons in hydrogen atoms that emit photons??????

So now the goalposts have been changed yet again from hydrogen atoms, to electrons, to now dust.
I notice how you completely ignored the Doppler shift formula where c is the velocity of light in a vacuum which alone blows your nonsense apart.

Since dust is the latest in the line of red herrings for Doppler shift, then explain how photons from one star would be Doppler shifted to the blue, another to the red and another no shift at all.
We already know the effects of dust on light, the term is known as interstellar reddening and since it involves scattering and the loss of energy of photons, you are still in the same boat in being unable to explain blueshift.

Your posts are a complete joke.
You get caught out lying for boasting about being able to explain Doppler shift which you try to deflect with red herrings, each red herring leads to a bigger hole you have dug for yourself.

Need we remind you that Dust has electrons too????

Your strawman fails on every account in your sad attempt to avoid your flawed belief in the density of matter in space.

Next you’ll be telling me those hydrogen atoms emitting Alpha Lyman radiation are hydrogen atoms, while claiming they are neutral.

 

[sjastro]

Your clock is a ruler, equally divided into 12 units equally divided into 60, equally divided into 60 again.

Your stopwatch is a ruler..... equally divided into.......

Oh well that explains why I can't read time on my ruler; it's in metric ruler composed of 30 units equally divided into 300.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh well that explains why I can't read time on my ruler; it's in metric ruler composed of 30 units equally divided into 300.

Your clock would work if you divided it into units of 30 equally divided into 300 and had a dial run at a consistent speed. Or even run your finger along your ruler at a constant speed......

Just like a clock....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

I don’t care what kind you want to deal with. EM radiation is being emitted separate from the radioactive decay. It is that energy loss which leads to the binding energy being lowered and the ejection of neutrons, protons, etc.

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.

Just admit that EM radiation is always emitted as the electron moves. Lowering the binding energy of ALL atoms which leads to ALL decay radioactive or not.....

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.

Agreed.

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.

What is velocity? The movement of something over a specified 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.

Because you are ignoring the movement of the electrons leading to loss of EM radiation (energy) leading to the decay.....

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?

And it faded because the electrons in the material are moving emitting EM leading to energy loss or decay....

Hence the picture if accelerated would gain some energy due to its acceleration which would help offset its decay.

Hence clocks slow and twins and pictures age less.....

Not to mention you are using a substance that reacts chemically to light, the light continuing to cause the substance to react....

Not Avery good argument since it was reactive to light to begin with.....

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?

No, because all of them refuse to consider the movement of the electron at the subatomic leading to energy loss and decay. If their was no movement their would be no decay.... or time....

 

[sjastro]

Apparently you are unaware that electrons are in hydrogen and according to theory it is the electron that absorbs and emits photons...

Do you really need to try so hard to avoid the truth you ignore standard physics?????



All photons interacting with electrons impart their momentum to the electron or have momentum imparted to them.....

Standard EM theory as well as quantum electrodynamics...

Maxwell’s equations predict that radiation is emitted as a consequence of the change of velocity (acceleration) of the electron impinged on, due to momentum transfer. That point has been taken into account in quantum electrodynamics as explained by Jauch and Rohrlich who show that such a phenomenon always exists, as seen in their statement:
"This bremsstrahlung or deceleration radiation with the emission of a single photon is a well defined process only within certain limits: The simultaneous emission of very soft photons – too soft to be observed within the accuracy of the energy determination of the incident outgoing electron – can never be excluded. In fact, this radiation is always present even in the so-called elastic scattering ."

J. M. Jauch and F. Rohrlich, The Theory of Photons and Electrons, Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, Mass.



Who’s changing the goalposts but you by ignoring those electrons in hydrogen atoms that emit photons??????


Need we remind you that Dust has electrons too????

Your strawman fails on every account in your sad attempt to avoid your flawed belief in the density of matter in space.

Next you’ll be telling me those hydrogen atoms emitting Alpha Lyman radiation are hydrogen atoms, while claiming they are neutral.

Even by your standards for spin stories this one rates very low.
Perhaps you are unaware that electrons in dust and neutral hydrogen atoms do not behave as free electrons.
You think the term neutral in neutral hydrogen atoms applies to electrons?

 

[sjastro]

Your clock would work if you divided it into units of 39 equally divided into 300 and had a dial run at a consistent speed. Or even run your finger along your ruler at a constant speed......

Just like a clock....

You still haven't explained how you can measure time with a ruler.

 

[SelfSim]

Justanother D-K Rhapsody?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Even by your standards for spin stories this one rates very low.
Perhaps you are unaware that electrons in dust and neutral hydrogen do not behave as free electrons.
You think the term neutral in neutral hydrogen applies to electrons?

Are you claiming that in either state they would not absorb a photon and then re-emit it?????

Please back up your claim that free electrons do not emit light just like atoms do. Since plasma is composed of free electrons and it emits light in the lab just fine, you have a challenge ahead of you...

The term neutral is misleading. Let’s say “balanced”. A neutral hydrogen atom has neither an excess of positive or negative charge.

But back to your claim of the density of matter in space. Please back up your claim that there is hardly any when their same claims right next door we’re falsified by a factor of 30....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don’t care what kind you want to deal with. EM radiation is being emitted separate from the radioactive decay. It is that energy loss which leads to the binding energy being lowered and the ejection of neutrons, protons, etc.

Just admit that EM radiation is always emitted as the electron moves. Lowering the binding energy of ALL atoms which leads to ALL decay radioactive or not.....

EM radiation is emitted from electrons when they are accelerated or when they drop to a lower orbital in an atom. Since radionuclides don't have sufficient binding energy to hold the nucleus together due to excess neutrons or protons, they're unstable to begin with; EM radiation is not relevant to their instability. They may produce EM radiation when they decay, they may not, but more importantly, it's not relevant to when they will decay.

What is velocity? The movement of something over a specified distance?????

Yes, the rate of change of position. This is why time is not just a measurement of distance; a circuit of the recreation ground across the road from me is 2/3 mile. What does that measurement of distance tell you about the time it takes to run a circuit?

Because you are ignoring the movement of the electrons leading to loss of EM radiation (energy) leading to the decay.....

Nope, that's not how radioactive decay occurs.

And it faded because the electrons in the material are moving emitting EM leading to energy loss or decay....

That supposes a photoelectric effect. The emulsion molecules might simply absorb a photon and reconfigure their structure. But the precise mechanism is irrelevant because, as with radioactive decay, you can't use a single molecule or atom to tell the time. Each atom or molecule will change effectively at random; i.e. it's not what goes on in a single atom or molecule that tells you the time.

For the photograph, it's the intensity of incident light of the relevant frequency, and for the radionuclide, it's stochastic quantum mechanics.

No, because all of them refuse to consider the movement of the electron at the subatomic leading to energy loss and decay. If their was no movement their would be no decay.... or time....

The point is, that regardless of what causes the change in each atom or molecule, that process doesn't give you any information about the half-life of the radionuclide, or the time-to-fade of the photograph.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is closed for staff review. ​