ninja_lord666 Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 Space, being on non-Euclidean geometry, is very strange, and our laws of physics don't entirely work there. We're not even sure if gravity works the same way. As such, there will never be anything that is consistent in space and on a planet like Earth. Not even light is constant. Yes, light can be slowed down, bent, fractured, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Wolfe Posted March 24, 2008 Author Share Posted March 24, 2008 Damn Damn DAMN This whole measuring of time thing is way more complex than it seems at first........ How fast do atomic clocks have to go to slowdown anyways? And does it even matter, since everything slows down at those speeds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilkoal Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 well, i'd figure once we are able to see individual atoms, and the electrons that fly around them, we could measure how long it takes for an electron to rotate around a carbon atom (since all known life forms contain carbon,) and then tell time in electron rotations. :) and as for on other planets, we could take a measurement of how long it takes for a carbon atom's electrons to rotate around the atom on several different planets and if the measurements are different, we take the averagel. i'd suppose that would fix our problem of being able to tell time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Nah, ultimately it means turning to physics which are more advanced that what we are capable of understanding. Your mistake was really thinking that something so relative as time can be actually defined by physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilkoal Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 then wouldnt we be able to use the half life of a certain type of atom (the most common one that has a half life, of which i have no clue) as a way of determining a unit of time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninja_lord666 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 then wouldnt we be able to use the half life of a certain type of atom (the most common one that has a half life, of which i have no clue) as a way of determining a unit of time?Every element has a half life...if in it's a radioactive ion. I've never heard of radioactive hydrogen, though...Does hydrogen even have ions? Either way, it wouldn't work, because that's still aging. It may be non-living, but it's still aging nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilkoal Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 but doesnt age define time? PS. i laugh every time i see your "pc gamer/console gamer" part of your sig :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninja_lord666 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 but doesnt age define time? PS. i laugh every time i see your "pc gamer/console gamer" part of your sig :)Yes, and time is relative. Thus, we'll never make a constant calendar, or clock. If the thing we're measuring isn't even constant, how can we expect the measuring device to be constant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Wolfe Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 Oh, einsteinian physics turn me on. (I kid, I KID!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramul Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 well, i'd figure once we are able to see individual atoms, and the electrons that fly around them, we could measure how long it takes for an electron to rotate around a carbon atom (since all known life forms contain carbon,) and then tell time in electron rotations. :) and as for on other planets, we could take a measurement of how long it takes for a carbon atom's electrons to rotate around the atom on several different planets and if the measurements are different, we take the averagel. i'd suppose that would fix our problem of being able to tell time...And do you have any proposals as to how we could revise the rules of quantum mechanics to accomplish this? then wouldnt we be able to use the half life of a certain type of atom (the most common one that has a half life, of which i have no clue) as a way of determining a unit of time?Every element has a half life...if in it's a radioactive ion. I've never heard of radioactive hydrogen, though...Does hydrogen even have ions? Either way, it wouldn't work, because that's still aging. It may be non-living, but it's still aging nonetheless.No, it is not aging. An atom of a radioactive isotope either decays, or does not decay. It has a specific probability of decaying within a given period of time, but in this case dice have no memory. Also, tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, with a half life of 12.32 years.-----A calendar proposal I came across a while ago is Symmetry454. Can't really say if it's better or worse than others, but the idea of constant dates does appeal to me. However, calendars cannot easily be changed. All, or almost all, watches that display dates would be invalidated, as would anything else that uses hardwired dates or that cannot be easily updated.-----As for space calendars, as long as Earth is the only residence of mankind, whatever it's on will be used for dating communications. Local days will likely be kept track of, possibly by having significant times marked on whatever sort of calendars we're using then. Years, likely depends on whether there are significant changes in the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.