This puts me in mind of a theory expounded to me by a good friend (I still don't know if he was serious or kidding):
You know how time seems to get faster as you get older? Well, actually it's not just you, time really is speeding up. Today's kids just never saw how it was when it used to go slower and think the current pace is normal. I guess it's kind of hard to disprove the proposition that time (along with all the devices that we use to measure it) really is accelerating. Jack At 10:13 PM 12/5/99 -0800, rw wrote: >*sigh*--My computer just crashed, losing the entire letter which I had >just finished up and meant to send to the sundial list. Good ol' >microsoft... > >Here is roughly what I had said: > >Probably most of you have stopped to think about how abstract the whole >idea of measuring a thing as time, let alone how abstract time itself >is. Here is a thing which cannot be seen nor felt, nor held. How does >one measure it, when it cannot be put into a bottle and marked? > >Indeed much thought and many great minds were involved in giving us the >time-measuring devices we have around today, the least of these >definitely not sundials. And the EoT used by you dialists can come up >with extremely accurate and precise time measurements. > >-but- (here's where you should stop reading, for your own good! Trust >me. I don't think it's quite on-topic either) Given that our >earth-bound time is largely measured by one large object orbiting >another even larger object, I wonder: > >1. the speed of the earth's travels around the sun are faster in some >parts of the year >2. the gravitational attractions between earth and sun are >(immeasurably?) greater when both are closest to each other. > >Einstein proved with his relativity theory that: >1. The faster an object moves, the slower time passes for it. >2. Gravitational forces affect both space and time. > >Therefore, I must conclude that, accurate and precise as the EoT may >look, it is not. After all, time speeds up (measurable to us or not is >immaterial; what matters here is the principle) while we are moving >slower around the earth, and slows when we are moving faster. Perhaps >time is rather quite corrugated for us, ever bouncing faster and slower, >so that the space-time continuum looks like a bumpy road with great >speed bumps. > >And so I ask that someone comes up with an EoT that accounts for not >only the analemma, but also Einstein's theory of relativity. To be >exact, you must calculate the effects of: >-the speed of Earth's rotation (don't forget it's faster on the equator >than poles) >-the speed of earth's orbit around the sun in various times of the year >-the speed of the solar system's orbit around the Milky Way's center >-the speed of the Milky Way's orbit around its next greater thing >And so on until the entire universe is accounted for. >Of course, please don't forget to calculate the effects of gravity of >the earth, the sun, planets, and every other object in the entire >UNIVERSE, great or small. Gravity is a major force, after all. Every >atom counts. > >If i missed anything, let me know. > >Aside from this, I also propose that we base ALL measurements of time >upon a new, never-changing unit. This unit of time must be measured >while not moving at ALL in relation to..whatever there is to move in >relation to. It also must be measured away from ALL gravitational >forces whatsoever (meaning that no device can be used to measure it, >since -of course!-every atom counts). > >I lack the mathematical prowess to come up with this new EoT and unit of >time measurement, so I will leave it to you wonderful people to come up >with them. Let me know your results. > >The world will be a better place for it, I assure you. > >... > > >Heh heh. > > >:o) (just kidding) > > >Ryan Weh > >
