In a message dated 13/12/2009 18:52:37 GMT Standard Time,
charles_steinm...@lavabit.com writes:
Volts and yards, at least, are also not absolute measurements in the
same sense that measurements of time are not absolute. Volts express
the difference in electrical potential, and yards the
In a message dated 13/12/2009 05:04:53 GMT Standard Time,
charles_steinm...@lavabit.com writes:
I think we all agree that intervals are what we measure. The
question is whether this has any bearing on whether time is an
absolute quantity, and if so, whether time being or not being an
This discussion started off interestingly enough, but has deteriorated to a
point where it reminds me of a tale told to me by one of my mentors well
over 40 years ago. At the time, I was very interested in existential
philosophy myself and studied it and thought about it ad infinitum.
It goes
Nigel wrote:
I use absolute in the sense that is commonly implied in the term
absolute quantity, where an absolute quantity is the measure of
the absolute occurence of a variable, as in so many volts, yards, kilos, etc.
Volts and yards, at least, are also not absolute measurements in the
Charles,
That's a very good description of the situation.
The real dilemma has to do with why some people require absolutes,
as perfect, complete, or pure, when nature doesn't offer any. The
need originates in the brain, where perceptions are adjusted to
find absolutes.
Absolute zero is merely
You guys obviously missed Hermann Weyl's writings, specifically his
Space-Time-Matter and Philosophy of Mathematics both of which I have
read exhaustively in my early 20's. That is well over 40 years ago, yet I
still feel the impact of some of his statements. That was mainly why earlier
I
Perhaps because we may move about in the three spatial
dimensions as we move unidirectionally in the temporal dimension?
Charles P. Steinmetz wrote:
The puzzle is why we perceive the spatial dimensions so differently from
the temporal dimension. It is a fascinating question, but may
At 01:51 PM 12/13/2009, Charles P. Steinmetz wrote...
In my view, these are all questions, not about time, but rather about
our perception of time.
Yes, he seems to have discovered Eddington's arrow of time.
There also seems to be some confusion over the difference between the
spacetime
Mike wrote:
You guys obviously missed Hermann Weyl's writings, specifically his
Space-Time-Matter and Philosophy of
Mathematics * * * That was mainly why earlier I expressed
my opinion simply as bullshit
Not at all. It's just that for all of Weyl's brilliant contributions
to
not be Proteus by any chance :). Regards - Mike
-Original Message-
From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On
Behalf Of Charles P. Steinmetz
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 11:28 PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts
In a message dated 12/12/2009 05:08:39 GMT Standard Time,
john.fo...@gmail.com writes:
Time does not just exist. That is correct. It is a human construct, like
all other things. We define it, as all other things, and then make useful
empirical comparative observations with it.
In a message dated 12/12/2009 08:13:04 GMT Standard Time,
charles_steinm...@lavabit.com writes:
Time nuts do not and cannot measure time itself because time as an
absolute entity just doesn't exist.
I suppose specifying the interval since the big bang could qualify as
an absolute measure
At 06:47 PM 12/11/2009, gandal...@aol.com wrote...
Unfortunately, that's not really the way it is.
That's opinion, stated as fact.
Time nuts do not and cannot measure time itself because time as an
absolute
entity just doesn't exist.
That depends upon how one defines time. Also, how one
In a message dated 12/12/2009 11:35:49 GMT Standard Time,
mi...@flatsurface.com writes:
At 06:47 PM 12/11/2009, gandal...@aol.com wrote...
Unfortunately, that's not really the way it is.
That's opinion, stated as fact.
--
Is it?
Can you show me any definition of time which
At 07:13 AM 12/12/2009, gandal...@aol.com wrote...
I think you might be missing the point, the OED definition that you
quote
does not define time itself as an absolute measurable entity, and what
time
nuts measure are, yet again, the intervals between events.
Define absolute measurable
Remember that saying from the Hitchhikers' Guide:
Time is an illusion - lunchtime doubly so.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions
In a message dated 12/12/2009 13:00:21 GMT Standard Time,
mi...@flatsurface.com writes:
At 07:13 AM 12/12/2009, gandal...@aol.com wrote...
I think you might be missing the point, the OED definition that you
quote
does not define time itself as an absolute measurable entity, and what
time
At 08:53 AM 12/12/2009, gandal...@aol.com wrote...
I'm sorry you can't, or won't, understand but the ability to measure
intervals between events does not in itself demonstrate the existence
of time as
any kind of physical entity.
LOL. You're over your head here.
Give it to them Nigel . . . . .
Roy
--
From: gandal...@aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 11:47 PM
To: time-nuts@febo.com
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Beginner's time reference
In a message dated 11/12/2009 21:47:28 GMT Standard Time
of these heavy thoughts . . .
Bill Hawkins
-Original Message-
From: gandal...@aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 11:47 PM
To: time-nuts@febo.com
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Beginner's time reference
In a message dated 11/12/2009 21:47:28 GMT Standard Time,
michael.c...@wanadoo.fr writes
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:33 AM, Mike S mi...@flatsurface.com wrote:
At 06:47 PM 12/11/2009, gandal...@aol.com wrote...
Unfortunately, that's not really the way it is.
That's opinion, stated as fact.
That all depends on what your definition of is is :-)
In a message dated 12/12/2009 15:17:23 GMT Standard Time,
mi...@flatsurface.com writes:
At 08:53 AM 12/12/2009, gandal...@aol.com wrote...
I'm sorry you can't, or won't, understand but the ability to measure
intervals between events does not in itself demonstrate the existence
of time
: [time-nuts] Beginner's time reference
In a message dated 12/12/2009 15:17:23 GMT Standard Time,
mi...@flatsurface.com writes:
At 08:53 AM 12/12/2009, gandal...@aol.com wrote...
I'm sorry you can't, or won't, understand but the ability to measure
intervals between events does not in itself
Well, here's another statement that reveals the nature of time:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Bill Hawkins
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
At 12:41 PM 12/12/2009, Ian Sheffield wrote...
I can imagine this kind of debate over a soccer/hockey/insert your
sport here/ team,
but on the nature of time?
unless I am missing some irony?
He's either having a very hard time stating something very obvious (and
behaving as if it's
Some (Penrose, Nottale) suggest that time
may be discrete rather than continuous.
10E-43 second might be your basic tick.
Mike S wrote:
Alternately, he simply means there is no universal epoch for time, so
just as a spacial coordinate requires a defined reference, so too does a
time
I can not see how time is any different to any other quantity in
Maxwell's equations,
so time must be just as measurable, real and physical.
cheers, Neville Michie
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
At 05:02 PM 12/12/2009, Mike Naruta AA8K wrote...
Some (Penrose, Nottale) suggest that time
may be discrete rather than continuous.
10E-43 second might be your basic tick.
Yes, Planck time. Closer to 5.4e-44 s.
___
time-nuts mailing list --
-Original Message-
From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On
Behalf Of Neville Michie
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 4:03 PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Beginner's time reference
I can not see how time
Nigel wrote:
Again though, it's the interval that we measure. [In response to my
suggestion that, in theory, we could specify the interval since the
big bang and it would be absolute in a fairly robust sense, at
least in this universe.]
Assigning conventional units to measurement is not a
I'm hoping to build my own circuit around the device, which might cut
down the costs somewhat. Some rubidium sources on eBay go for less
than $100, but I'm not sure what quality to expect. Any advice or
suggestions are appreciated!
Short answer: Sure, get one of the $100 rubidium boxes and
Dear Hal and others,
Thank you for your suggestions. I suppose I should have emphasised that I
was looking to have my own reference, i.e. something not dependent on GPS,
LORAN, or other signals from the aether. Indeed I might get better accuracy
for less money by tapping the GPS time signal, but
Hi
Simple answers:
Will you have fun - yes indeed.
Will a $100 rubidium deliver more accurate time long term than a GPS - no.
To get close to what the GPS delivers you will need to go at least to a Cesium
standard. Getting one with a working tube is not going to be cheap. Once you
do, the
,
Jean-Louis
- Original Message -
From: Charl ch...@turingbirds.com
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
time-nuts@febo.com
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Beginner's time reference
Dear Hal and others,
Thank you for your suggestions
Charl,
If it is autonomous operation you want, then your only choice is a Cesium Beam
frequency reference. By definition it is absolute ! But that does not address
resolution. For instance, if the Cs is old tube and noisy, while it may be
accurate, due to the noise you may not be able to
Bill,
he was planning to spend 100 USD on a used Rubidium, I think a Cs is way
over his budget ;-)
But I agree that a Rubidium has a shorter life span and if you get one
for 100 USD on eBay, I would expect it to be worn out already.
I would not spend 100 USD on a used oscillator, Rubidium
Bill,
he was planning to spend 100 USD on a used Rubidium, I think a Cs is way
over his budget ;-)
Luck has more to do with that than money. My cheapest cesium standard, at
$500, also turned out to be the only one out of three with a healthy tube. You
have to plan on buying a few
I'm hearing a lot of recommendations for types of oscillators, but noone has
asked the question - what is the desired performance?
For me, I wanted a clock that stays within a second of UTC for a year. I'm
pretty sure the LPRO I bought will exceed that, (though I guess I won't know
for another
As someone relatively new to the precision time/frequency game my viewpoint
is a little different to the more seasoned folk. Your statement that you
wanted to build your own atomic standard leads me to believe that this is
more of a learning experience for you. Even if you want to build it
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:50 AM, John Green wpxs...@gmail.com wrote:
As someone relatively new to the precision time/frequency game my viewpoint
is a little different to the more seasoned folk. Your statement that you
wanted to build your own atomic standard leads me to believe that this is
-
From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On
Behalf Of Justin Pinnix
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:50 AM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Beginner's time reference
I'm hearing a lot of recommendations for types
Charl,
I am very new to this as well and I had similar goals you to yours.
In the end, all of these standards use a crystal oscillator. It is just a
matter of what is doing the disciplining. The Cesium Beam, Rubidium, and
GPS signals all discipline a crystal oscillator. The quality of the
Building oscillators, restoring old frequency standards, interfacing to a
clock or time display, and tracking your successes and failures is the lure.
For independent checking of time and to some extent frequency, I play with
several radio related approaches: WWV, WWVB, CHU, GPS, and Russian
- Original Message -
From: jmfranke jmfra...@cox.net
snipped
You will often hear that time is the inverse of frequency, but the
inverse of
frequency is period or time interval. Time is set by governments.
I agree with the the sentment, but not the last phrase.
For me time just
Excellent comments!
John WA4WDL
--
From: mike cook michael.c...@wanadoo.fr
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 4:46 PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
time-nuts@febo.com
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Beginner's time reference
Thank you for your suggestions. I suppose I should have emphasised
that I was looking to have my own reference, i.e. something not
dependent on GPS, LORAN, or other signals from the aether. Indeed I
might get better accuracy for less money by tapping the GPS time
signal, but to me that's not
snip
The big boys use GPS to compare their clocks. Search for common view.
common view time transfer
Stanley
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow
In a message dated 11/12/2009 21:47:28 GMT Standard Time,
michael.c...@wanadoo.fr writes:
For me time just exists. What time nuts do is to try and measure and
characterise it.
Unfortunately, that's not really the way it is.
Time nuts do not and cannot measure time
Hi
We ran one of the NIST common view gizmos for a number of years. After watching
what they were doing off of published data, I think a time nut could do the
same thing. The only gotcha being that you have a good clock to compare to.
Bob
On Dec 11, 2009, at 6:44 PM, Stanley Reynolds wrote:
by ATT
-Original Message-
From: gandal...@aol.com
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:47:02
To: time-nuts@febo.com
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Beginner's time reference
In a message dated 11/12/2009 21:47:28 GMT Standard Time,
michael.c...@wanadoo.fr writes:
For me time just exists. What time
As a
newbie to the field of timekeeping, I'm a bit uncertain what would make a
good first system. The price tag of the high end masers unfortunately puts
them outside my range, based on what I could see on eBay. I'll be happy to
pay for good equipment, but once it gets to 4 digits it starts
Hi John,
but you may not be comparing apples to apples.
Tom's plots are actual performance of probably a very good sample unit.
The 5071A spec lines you drew are worst-case specs.
In reality, the 5071A probably performs much better than it's spec limits?
Also, I think the 5071A just has
but you may not be comparing apples to apples.
Tom's plots are actual performance of probably a very good sample unit.
The 5071A spec lines you drew are worst-case specs.
In reality, the 5071A probably performs much better than it's
spec limits?
Also, I think the 5071A just has a good
John Miles wrote:
but you may not be comparing apples to apples.
Tom's plots are actual performance of probably a very good sample unit.
The 5071A spec lines you drew are worst-case specs.
In reality, the 5071A probably performs much better than it's
spec limits?
Also, I think the 5071A
Unless one uses a 3 cornered hat technique or equivalnet one can only
measure the relative stability of a pair of sources.
What source was used as the reference in your measurements?
The measurements were made with an upgraded 5061A (Datum tube and
10811-60109).
I have used it to measure
55 matches
Mail list logo
