uwot wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:53 am
ken wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:24 amA clock does not have its own abilities nor its own mechanism to slow itself down nor to speed its self up.
Abilities is an odd predicate to attribute to an inanimate object, but clocks absolutely
do have a mechanism.
I really wonder if you actually see the actual words that I write. In just 18 words you have twice misrepresented what I ACTUALLY WROTE, and I only wrote 22 words. I did NOT state that an inanimate object has its own abilities. And, I did NOT state that clocks do not have a mechanism. What do you think caused you to see what you saw in what I wrote and so say what you did?
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:53 amThere is no such thing as a magic box that just happens to show 'the right time'.
Obviously, And just to make sure this includes any thing with names like clock, watch, time-piece, et cetera, right?
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:53 am All clocks count periodic events.
You are one of those who say clocks slow down when traveling at speed. So, how do you propose a clock could or would slow down at speed if they count periodic events? Do periodic events slow down with speed also? If so, then is that why clocks supposedly slow down?
By the way, from what I observe, clocks do NOT count any thing. Clocks either move at a rate set by human beings, which is basically adjusted for and to light, or clocks move at a rate influenced or set directly by light. Human beings then use that set rate of change to "measure" and observe the one and only event into different periods.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:53 amA quartz clock, for example, counts the oscillations of a piece of stone that has been cut into the shape of a tuning fork.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz_clock
ken wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:24 amRelative to human beings only, things ONLY APPEAR to slow down, or speed up. But if things like a clock or the ageing process could actually slow down, when traveling at speed, then HOW could they possibly do this?
In order for the 'tuning fork' to vibrate, every atom it is made of has to move through space. If it is at rest, that movement can be described as straight up and down; the shortest distance necessary for oscillation. If the tuning fork is not stationary, the path the atoms have to travel includes the motion in the direction of travel. In other words, to complete an oscillation, the atoms have to travel further through space.
Not necessarily so.
Also, just for your information like I observe that there is no such thing as absolute time I also observe no such thing as absolute space.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:53 amBut, since the energy the battery supplies does not increase, the movement through space stays the same. Therefore, each oscillation 'takes longer' and the clock counts fewer oscillations than it would if it were at rest and the face shows that 'time has slowed down'.
That nearly supports the theory. But it does NOT.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:53 am The same is true of any process that involves atoms; biological processes are no exception, so the faster you go, literally, the slower you age.
If that is what you believe, then so be it.
Finally you have provided an answer to MY question, in regards to a tick-tock clock, and one that even began sounding somewhat feasible. But it was just another attempt at
trying to support what one already believes is true. And thankfully your answer allowed Me to see more evidence to support the contrary. Your answer did not actually show that a clock traveling to a planet four light years away traveling at the speed of light from start to finish (IF POSSIBLE) would not have changed by one second when it arrived there. What you have shown Me actually is HOW the light-clock example also does NOT work.
By the way, to a human being traveling with that clock how long would the face of that clock show the trip took?
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:53 amken wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:24 amWhat maybe relative to human beings on earth dies NOT necessarily mean it is
what IS actually true and correct. "Time" ONLY APPEARS to slow down, to some of those human beings on earth when another one is traveling to, let us say, another planet at speed. But that is NOT what actually happens.
That would only be true if there were some such thing as absolute time. As far as we know, there isn't. You may believe in it, if you so wish, but there is absolutely no evidence that it exists.
WHY would you state, "You may believe in it, if you so wish, ...". I am the very One who states that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing, AND, that time is NOT an actual real thing.
HOW come you are so unaware of what I have been writing and saying?
ALSO, WHY would what I am saying only be true if there were some such thing as absolute time?
Remember it is you who is one of those that say ALL things slow down with speed. There could only be a slow down, with speed, if there was such a thing as time, correct?
I am the One saying that clocks, and what is generally known as "time", ONLY APPEAR to slow down, to some people. BECAUSE it does NOT appear that way to Me at all.
Your answers are given Me more support, which I will verify before I report on them.