Yes, well, be that as it may, that lunch time will have some small discrepancy for engineers in different branches of the company.
Wrong! Their clocks are synchronized to read as one. When an engineer looks at his watch in New York and it reads 12:00:00, he knows FOR SURE that his coworker’s watch in Florida reads EXACTLY 12:00:00. So Einstein is proven wrong yet again, there is absolute time!
Not so. There will be differences measurable in fractions of a second between the different clocks.
That’s why the clock on your computer is regularly calibrated to the time it is told it is by an atomic clock somewhere.
So you’re saying that Eastern Time is New York is different than Eastern Time in Florida?
Eastern Time is a standard, not an existing time. Clocks will make reference to other clocks or physical events to determine what measures to apply the standard to. No two clocks will give the exact same reading.
If two clocks are synchronized to Eastern Standard Time then they are EXACTLY the same. I mean EXACTLY the same!!
That’s preposterous. There is a multi-billion dollar industry dedicated to making clocks more accurate.
So you’re saying no two clocks can be synchronized?
Not absolutely, no. It’s impossible. How would you do it?
So you’re saying EVERY CLOCK must read a different time. Otherwise some of those (2 or more clocks) would be reading exactly the same.
More BS from you, that’s all we get!
There is NO DIFFERNCE from the time in New York to the time in Florida. NONE! It is one time in both states. Just because your battery in your watch died does not mean your time is different. Just because you have a cheap watch that does not keep accurate time does not change the time in Florida or New York. Just because you travel at half the speed of light does not change the time in New York or Florida! Get a clue!
Even a state of the art atomic clock gives a range. Look it up. It’s not about cheap watches, though cheap watches will have much bigger ranges. It’s not about battery power or the clock being wound, the accuracy we are discussing is at peak watch performance.
That is arguably true, if in reference to the Sun, but even then you will get a range, which will simply apply equally to Florida and New York, and even then whatever instrument is used to make reference to the Sun will be slightly different in each case.
We know the Sun is not perfectly accurate, which is why we have leap years and other corrective measures at even longer time frames.
The motion of the Sun itself has erratic moments, occurs in frequencies rather than lines if the scale of space it travels is magnified enough.
And if you zoom in enough, thre is not even a Sun there anymore. There is nothing recognizable.
So where is the point?
No pun intended but - even though each is right about a lot of things - I think all of you are missing the point.
Imagine for a moment we have a “point in time” - call it “t0”. The stretch or width of that point is absolutely zero. It is exactly a single fixed “frame” - no width at all.
How many of those does it take to form 1 second? Zero times what equals 1?
With that in mind - it is thought that there must be steps of some discernible width that take up each frame of time - else even an infinity of frames would never reach even an infinitesimal of time - much less a full second.
What I (and others) see as the mistake is that the very idea of a zero width point is only conceptual and only applicable to the macroscopic world (which is why the brain naturally thinks in such terms). In the truly most infinitesimal world - zero width points are nonsense. That is logically/mathematically provable.
Quantum physics seems to be satisfied with declaring a fixed width as the smallest element of time - as long as it is so incredibly small that no one can very it – (Plank Length = 1.616255×10⁻³⁵ m). The problem with that is one of trying to fill space with elements of such width - it can’t be done. There can be no minimal fixed width element in physical reality of either existence or time. The very notion of it fails reason.
That leaves only the idea that physical reality actually consists of vagueness skewed upon vagueness - defying definable geometric construct - until a more macroscopic universe is perceived - where the vagueness beneath is hidden.
From what I can tell - that idea conforms with all of the deep and professional theories concerning the ultimate construct of physical reality - relativity, quantum mechanics - even James’ affectance ontology. It all fits – physical reality is made of a specific definable “smear” (my own word) – Einstein first described its bending nature - Plank described its size nature - Quantum mechanics described its predictability nature - James described its makeup and cause.
Every so called “point” in both time and space is actually a blur - not existing at any precise zero-width point - there is no actual infinitely precise time t0 - ever.
The reason and cause has been described by at least those 4 theories. The true nature of reality has been described by the combination of all 4 of them.
The way I see it is that each “point” of either position or of time is more like a graph of a standard deviation -
The center blue portion representing the Plank length - the general shape formed due to relativity - the cause due to James’ “affect upon affect”.
An in depth discussion of this topic requires its own thread - but the bottom line is that zero-width locations, position, or durations - cannot ever physically exist.
The 12:00:00 point in time is when the clock strikes 12. Not 11:59:59, and not 12:00:01, it is EXACTLY 12:00:00.
If you can’t understand that then I am wasting my time talking to you.
The “nonsense” arises when one claims a point has a diameter or duration. That is like saying 1=2. Total NONSENSE! 1.0 is EXACTLY 1 egg, or 1 watermelon, or 1 house, or 1 car, or 1 second, or 1 day, or 1 century!
They are all EXACTLY 1.0!
Obsrvr, I would be very happy with such a thread. I was about to respond but realized that you are correct that such a thread would be required.
What about 12:00:00:00:00:00:00:00. can you find two clocks that give the exact samre reading? How about 12:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00?
If you can’t, it means that a clock that only gives a reading up to seconds will shift from one second to the next at a slightly different moment than another clock calibrated as best as possible to the same time.