Thread: Is the unit of time, the second, non-arbitrary?

Originally Posted by Maat

Yes, I agree that the oscillation periods of 5 and 7 minutes are in really muddy waters, so-to-speak. Your suggestion of 3 and 6 minute oscillations seem to bear more weight as they relate to other theories. You mentioned Bode's Law in one of your links. You might be interested in the work of J.B. Stoneking, who proposed a resonance model of the solar system that does not have the shortcomings of Bode's Law. Unfortunately, I cannot find the original paper he published online (due to Compuserve's discontinuation of their hosting). However, I found a somewhat useful summary within this article: Body, which you may find some use for, if you are not already familiar with Stoneking's work.

"Therefore there is no exact clockwork anywhere." I think it would be a profound discovery if we could find a solar system similar to our own in its formative stage, which could be like studying our own solar system billions of years ago. It's be a great way to put some theories to the test.

Hi Maat

Yes, there have been a variety of alternatives to Bode's law. the one that you give has a linear sequence rather than geometric for the outer planets, just as I have. It is obviously a much better fit. Of course Bode (and Titus) really cheated with Mercury because as you go back from 1.2 to 0.6 to 0.3, the next one should be 0.15 not 0.0.

There were other suggestions that looked at the discrepancies from the main trend and one has a sine wave in it with something like 2*pi/13 in it. That one gets a good fit with extra parameters. But what is really interesting about it, is that it correctly predicted a whole set of closely spaced extra moons for Neptune (and Uranus maybe) inside the existing ones.

When I examine the large moons of the planets, I find that there are many at close to 0.0012 and 0.0024 AU from their planets. Very suggestive.

I have to wonder what you lot have been reading ? and I am picking on most of you.. I am seeing nonsense and utter nonsense..

Now excepting that being wrong is a art form I have perfected and that being told such does seem to be a issue for me...

Looking across to a book case where a old dusty Chine's abacus sits.. unused for decades but its batteries are never flat..

and guess what.. you can use whatever base number you like.. I happen to like Ten. As did the folk whom used that abacus.

I am obviously a ignorant fool as I had / have no knowledge of the second being further divided by sixty and so on..

Having as a young man worked as motor race circuit time keeper.. stop watches and lap timing was a hobby..

A six hour production race tested our abilities and the pre race qualifying required calculations of lap times..

All of this was done thus...Hours and minutes divided by sixty. and seconds divided by tenths and hundredths.

A strange mixture of numeric values., but that was how it was done...

BUT, but for the FACT that all of this discussion of number values is solely regardless of any logic at all. Man made., and nonsense.

Numerology and patterns of such are or can be found in almost anything you look at.

Absolutely vital to calculations we see the need to perform. Arithmetic.

The Universe Does not Know Maths, Nor Does It need to. Thats a Human construct.

Us humans are wrong more than we care to remember... you have to ask what is this all about..

Just remind me...How did the Hubble scope get built so wrong. Why could we not slow a Mars lander correctly.. Oh yea...Maths were wrong...

Don't blame that on math! Blame the metric system.

Originally Posted by grapes

Don't blame that on math! Blame the metric system.

Not having much to do.. I was revisating this idea.. and have drawn some conclusion..

Blame the metric system.. No. The People were WRONG. They whom made mistakes.

The system was never wrong.. the people working the numbers were.

Unacountable as they were.. It was they that cost so many millions..

and all of this is not this subject is it... This subject of the second being a arbitrary term..

and NO its just our construct of time.

Originally Posted by Maat

The atomic second, based on the radiation periods of caesium-133, is only non-arbitrary in the sense that it was adopted to essentially match, yet add an unprecedented level of precision to the already arbitrary unit.

But , the radiation periods of caesium-133 are subject to time dilation, are they not ?
I'd assume that the standardizing measurement of the clock's ocillations was done at absolute rest relative to all directions of travel to minimize the distortion that may be caused by kinematic time dilation effects. And compensated for gravitational induced time dilation effects. And the Sagnac effect. And maybe the temp of the clock. They say that temp does not affect the radiation rate, but anytime you have something ( a nucleus ) vibrating from side to side more or less, I think it would be subject to more time dilation.

And then, that these effects are taken into account again, when taking a measurement anywhere else in the world with a cessium-133 clock, when accuracy of time would be important to the calculations needed ?

Yeah right. I definitely think using the radiation of an atom is the best way, but I question the relativety of the measurements.

I'm probably not completely right in what I say, but probably not also completely wrong.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey DreamKing

I'm probably not completely right in what I say, but probably not also completely wrong.

At least you have the honesty to admit this. Personally I feel the second (as found in Nature) is non-arbitray; with that being said, I find what is arbitray about the second is the human element and how we 'handle' it...among other things...

Originally Posted by David E. Eaton Sr.

[COLOR="#800080"]Personally I feel the second (as found in Nature) is non-arbitray;

I'm intrigued. Where is the second found in nature?

Not to put a too stronger point to it, but. I think I can explain.. and am sure that David E. Eaton Sr. will soon chime in with his own answer for you..

When the term " As found in nature " was used. Its to project the action of the passage of time..

Forward relentlessly regardless of who is or not measuring its passage.. Because passage is what it has... its called 'time'.

We, humanity have fitted the passage of time with increments of meaning to 'us'.. Its as simple or as complicated as that.

Parts of and whole seconds, minutes, hours and so on... "arbitrary " No.. regardless. in spite of us..

Originally Posted by astromark

Not to put a too stronger point to it, but. I think I can explain.. and am sure that David E. Eaton Sr. will soon chime in with his own answer for you..

When the term " As found in nature " was used. Its to project the action of the passage of time..

Forward relentlessly regardless of who is or not measuring its passage.. Because passage is what it has... its called 'time'.

We, humanity have fitted the passage of time with increments of meaning to 'us'.. Its as simple or as complicated as that.

Parts of and whole seconds, minutes, hours and so on... "arbitrary " No.. regardless. in spite of us..

I could not have put it any more eloquently than you have, astromark, and, for that, I thank you.

The day came first, then the hours, then the minutes, then the seconds. The second is an attempt to divide up our days into increasingly smaller increments. Why we choose to divide a day into twelve and not ten ? Maybe it had something to do with Trig and being able to work with the numbers easier if they were aligned in divisions of the unit circle. If so, then the decision of 12 was the path of least resistance and more dependent upon the natural properties of numbers. The day, I would argue, is completely non-arbitrary because it is based on the motions of the planet and sun. A year was probably divided by seasons and moon cycles. The seasons are more subjective as to when they start or stop, but still there are always four per year. Twelve is also a number that has the path of least resistance since it has many common divisors: 2, 3, 4, 6. Any of the inbetween numbers can be made from it's divisors. 2+3=5, 3+4=7, 3+6=9, and addition of all those inbetweens can make 11 and 10. Humans really like to divide things into two and not three or five. I think the first clock was made of 2,4,8,16 or so many divisions. I don't know how they ever arrived at 12 from dividing a circle though.