Starship Asterisk*

astrolabe wrote:orin? bystander?

I'm beginning to think that you two have juuuuust a little too much time on your hands. The value of a second of time would have to be the same, So the number of seconds in a day would remain unchanged; as would kms, as well as any metric length. So c would still be 300,000 m/s. There would be no MPH, only KPH. And more distance would be travelled in a metric hour so velocities would need adjusting at the minute and hour increments. However, to say that it takes N amount of days or years to arrive at some destination would be valid and NOT change , of course.

BTW 100 sec X 100 min. I believe is 10,000 sec as opposed to 100,000. Agreed there would be 8.64 hr. per day. Stay tuned there's more forthcoming soon

I guess my math was OK 8)
Hey there's a time for work and a time for play! I worked for over 50 years so now it's time to play! You think? Actually I'm still working part time; but I do have some time on my hands. That Metric time may have kept me younger though.

Orin

astrolabe wrote:orin? bystander?

I'm beginning to think that you two have juuuuust a little too much time on your hands. The value of a second of time would have to be the same, So the number of seconds in a day would remain unchanged; as would kms, as well as any metric length. So c would still be 300,000 m/s. There would be no MPH, only KPH. And more distance would be travelled in a metric hour so velocities would need adjusting at the minute and hour increments. However, to say that it takes N amount of days or years to arrive at some destination would be valid and NOT change , of course.

BTW 100 sec X 100 min. I believe is 10,000 sec as opposed to 100,000. Agreed there would be 8.64 hr. per day. Stay tuned there's more forthcoming soon

Why would a second have to remain the same? It's as artificial as minutes and hours. If we are going with decimal time, what's up with 8.64 hr days? (What would the clock look like?) That's worse than 60 sec * 60 min * 24 hr. (100 sec * 100 min * 10 hr = 1 day = 100,000 sec). You could even do away with hrs, mins, secs altogether. An hour would just be a deci-day, and a minute would be a milli-day, a tenth of a second - a micro-day.

BTW - The US would still have MPH, we're just too backward.

bystander wrote:Why would a second have to remain the same?

In theory you wouldn't. But the second as currently defined is critical to the definition of most physical constants. Trying to redefine that second would break just about everything.

You could define a timekeeping second that fit into the decimalized scheme, but you would need a conversion factor to relate it to "real" seconds.

We also need to remember that no civil timekeeping system can stay in sync with the motion of the Earth. That's why we have a never-ending procedure of tweaking civil time by the use of leap seconds, and offsets from atomic time. That system would need to stay in place, but would be made more complex because of the redefinition of the civil second- you would want to make sure that the conversion factor was simple and exact.

Chris Peterson wrote:In theory you wouldn't. But the second as currently defined is critical to the definition of most physical constants. Trying to redefine that second would break just about everything.

Yes, I alluded to that problem in my earlier post.

If we are going to do decimal time, I propose we define a day as some finite number of ticks of a single ion clock, instead of some arbitrary (earth?) light/dark cycle, and do away with hours, minutes and seconds all together. We could have days, millidays and microdays.

While we are at it, let's decimalize (???) angular measure. 360 degrees, 60 minutes, 60 seconds, what's up with that? Make a right angle 100 degrees instead of 90 and go from there. Instead of arc-minutes and arc-seconds, we could have arc-milli-degrees, and arc-micro-degrees. Of course now you have to recalculate all of the trig charts, but we have plenty of computers.

astrolabe wrote:So c would still be 300,000 m/s.

apodman wrote:300,000 km/s
300,000,000 m/s

astrolabe wrote:Oh, right. then 3,000,000,000,000 kilometers per my proposed metric hour?

3,000,000,000 km/mh (metric hour)
3,000,000,000,000 m/mh

''The past The present and The future has been a stubborn mule'' Time is an illusion. I am the beginning an the end at the same time. "Alpha and Omega"

Time is governed by Mass.. Or the over powering nothing? Fast Forward//// Reverse. Time will not be enslaved by Clocks.
Does not matter where the point goes.

Very interesting thread..

Mark

mark swain wrote:''The past The present and The future has been a stubborn mule'' Time is an illusion. I am the beginning an the end at the same time. "Alpha and Omega"

Time is governed by Mass.. Or the over powering nothing? Fast Forward//// Reverse. Time will not be enslaved by Clocks.

Time exists, as does space. It is not an illusion. I think it's better to say mass interacts with time and space. It governs neither. Clocks were never meant to enslave time, only measure it. Kind of a temporal yardstick.

http://diendan.hocmai.vn/showthread.php?t=53214

''The past The present and The future has been a stubborn mule'' (Quote)

The guy was to good to let things slip that did not conform? Would you? But been so genius would you encode it till man kind could understand it?

Mark

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Thank you mark swain for the link.

I had a few Eistein quotes, but never this many.

''The past The present and The future has been a stubborn mule''

In more ways than one.

bystander wrote:
While we are at it, let's decimalize (???) angular measure. 360 degrees, 60 minutes, 60 seconds, what's up with that? Make a right angle 100 degrees instead of 90 and go from there. Instead of arc-minutes and arc-seconds, we could have arc-milli-degrees, and arc-micro-degrees. Of course now you have to recalculate all of the trig charts, but we have plenty of computers.

Why not make the circle 1000 degrees instead? Of course that puts the right angle at 250 degrees. 8)

Orin

orin stepanek wrote:Why not make the circle 1000 degrees instead? Of course that puts the right angle at 250 degrees.

A natural value for things that don't require subdivision is one. Once around a circle. A right angle is 0.25.

You could do that with the day as well, but we find subdivision into natural fractional parts useful, thus seconds, minutes, and hours- all of which describe time intervals we find useful in their own right.

Chris Peterson wrote:You could do that with the day as well, but we find subdivision into natural fractional parts useful, thus seconds, minutes, and hours- all of which describe time intervals we find useful in their own right.

What's wrong with 0.1 (deci), 0.001 (milli), 0.000001 (micro), etc. We are talking decimal. What's natural about 1/60? Where did this come from, anyway?

Chris Peterson wrote:

orin stepanek wrote:Why not make the circle 1000 degrees instead? Of course that puts the right angle at 250 degrees.

A natural value for things that don't require subdivision is one. Once around a circle. A right angle is 0.25.

Let's say once around the circle is 2, and a right angle is 1/2. We could call our new measure pies and use the Greek letter π to represent it.

bystander wrote:What's natural about 1/60? Where did this come from, anyway?

It's the Sumerians, again.

Wikipedia: Sexagesimal wrote: Sexagesimal (base-sixty) is a numeral system with sixty as the base. It originated with the ancient Sumerians in the 2000s BC, was transmitted to the Babylonians, and is still used—in modified form—for measuring time, angles, and geographic coordinates.

The attraction in base 60 is divisibility.

60 = 2 x 2 x 3 x 5

and so is evenly divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, and 30, and 60.

---

360 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 5

and so is evenly divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 90, 120, 180, and 360.

---

Try that with decimal.

------

Most people I know divide seconds into quarters, "one-one-hundred, two-one-hundred", etc. when counting seconds without benefit of timepiece. Yet most mechanical watches tick five times per second. Just "watch" the intro to 60 Minutes (only one of the shows they'd have to rename under some of the proposed changes) and count the ticks. Or observe that times in horse racing are traditionally expressed in fifths of a second. There is no reason for any of this except that it fits the physical characteristics of springs and gears a watchmaker had on hand a long time ago.

http://fisicafacil.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... ntraction/

What time is it on voyager 1 - 2 ? I strongly suggest that our time, in any way shape or form does not correspond to how the universe works Time. Time is not fixed Now exists in every part at all points , in different ways and to calculate our hole universe into our GMT will get you wrong findings. This is not me trying to say your all wrong! This is me opening other doors to see what lies beyond.. Just like when you add other numbers to time you get other answers. The hole universe in a variant on every possibility with both the extremes in place. 13.7 billion times around the sun is our age.. How many times around the sun for Mars? And even this in not constant. How would Time differ if we could swap our milky way black hole for the bigger one in Andromeda? Would this make a difference.

Having an accident and less that 1 second later awaking in hospital to be told 2 months had past bye makes you think. How can one second pass for me, and 2 months for the conscious? 1 year could be 1 billion years in other parts of the universe?

How old am I to a butterfly?

Mark

mark swain wrote:Time is not fixed ... to calculate ... GMT

Our Earth ways are only for our convenience and make sense as a preferred timekeeping system only on Earth. The most important local intervals are the day (for our sleep and work cycle) and the year (to plant and harvest crops so we can eat and survive). The approximate month and its approximate subdivision the week exist only because of the convenience of observing the lunar cycle. Hours, minutes, and seconds are arbitrary. Knowing the current time only became important when navigators started sailing far to the east and west and needed a reference to compare with the right ascension of the stars to determine longitude. Synchronizing clocks to the minute and second only became important with the invention of railroads so that passengers would not miss their trains and so that eastbound and westbound trains on the same track could plan on missing each other; before that, local time was good enough and time zones were unnecessary.

mark swain wrote:How old am I to a butterfly?

Most butterflies don't consider the concept of age. To the perceptive Monarch butterfly, you are Methuselah. To Mothra, you are just a flash in the pan.

But Methuselah is not old enough to describe my age to a butterfly ... The Butterfly can not comprehend age. just like we can not comprehend it comparison.. Flash in the pan it should of been. unless somebody got there bit wrong? Link to another door. Which i may or may not agree with. [link removed - it tries to run some untrusted activex component - boo... makc]

Mark

I really can go far beyond the link i posted....Im not the only one who thinks as I do.. The link i found was pure luck, but has been my mind set for a very long time. This thread by Harry from OZzzz is Quality.... Thanks Harry

Mark

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Hello Mark

Threads are made by a team effort,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,thank you Mark

But! as I'm discussing Time, I'm reading this paper on Space and Time.

Horava-Lifshitz gravity, absolute time, and objective particles in curved space
Publication Date: 04/2009
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009arXiv0904.3412N

Recently, Horava formulated a renormalizable theory of quantum gravity that reduces to general relativity at large distances but violates Lorentz invariance at small distances. The absolute time involved in this theory allows to define an objective notion of particles associated with quantization of fields in classical gravitational backgrounds. The Unruh effect and other observer-dependent notions of particles in curved space are interpreted as effects caused by interaction between the objective vacuum and the measuring apparatus made up of objective particles.

Maybe one day I may learn something, So! I keep reading till the cows come home and the book worm sleeps.

Why go to another part of the galaxy to find another planet to live on, when we got one right here 400 million years ago?

Question about time should be,,, how do we go about it? This is just objective reasoning. Not my view point.

Mark

G'day Mark

Smile

Just do it

=============

As for another planet, the TIME will come when we have to leave this heaven before it becomes hell on Earth so to speak.

Thanks again Mark.

Yes, >t< (Now) is infinite, but not eternal .. without an infinite Now non-locality would not be possible. A formula of >t< x Distance + or - or x C square or mc square or other factors perhaps yet to be discovered might give an answer as to how much energy is needed to initiate a non-local response at any desired distance. I've completed building, painting and harnessing my canoe Wannigan, so I have some spare t to work on an apparatus. but obviously I'm not working on the apparatus >t<

If a clone of me appears before your eyes, you who are reading this on Planet Brzrk, you will know I have succeeded in my initiative. If this technology is already in your grasp, I would appreciate your generosity of information .. with thanks. Sputnik, from Planet Earth, over and out.

And once again, to Astrolabe, I give thanks, with spirit, for the >t< symbol.

By the way, can anyone tell me why they named the Mars rover Spirit? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_rover_spirit

aristarchusinexile wrote:By the way, can anyone tell me why they named the Mars rover Spirit?

Wikipedia: Mars Exploration Rover: Naming wrote:
The Spirit and Opportunity rovers were named through a student essay competition. The winning entry was by Sofi Collis, a third-grade Russian-American student from Arizona.

• I used to live in an orphanage. It was dark and cold and lonely. At night, I looked up at the sparkly sky and felt better. I dreamed I could fly there. In America, I can make all my dreams come true. Thank you for the 'Spirit' and the 'Opportunity.'
  — Sofi Collis, age 9

http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/new ... 0608a.html

Hello aristarchusinexile,

Who the heck is Sputnick? Anyway, an apparatus that would give one the ability to succeed in being in two places at once (more likely many more than two) calls into question the intent of the individual(s). A sort of split conciousness would have to be present so that one would be able to direct their projected selves responsibly or else one ari wouldn't be able to see what the other ari-s are doing. Who's to say that all of us are in fact the result of an already failed experiment!

Sputnick is aristarchyadayada's banned alterego. He bargained his way back into the forum from bystander in some deal I am not fully aware of.