Jump to content
Lawson

Clockwork Dreams

Recommended Posts

Very interesting documentary Ray.

But if you look into the standardization of measurements by using light to measure time\distance its still a rubber ruler.  And as for this documentary, like most government TV "programs", they narrate using 'Giles Communication Accommodation Theory' when discussing such matters ... nothing has changed from the vanity of Kings; it's just switched to that of men in white coats.

 

The speed of light is not a constant, in fact now with a Bose-Einstein Condensate, you can stop a beam of light, hold it stationary and they let it go back on its merry way at any speed you choose.  They have also discovered that light passing through a vacuum @ 20 degrees Celsius is slowing down year by year, as too are the vibrations of atoms.  They didn't pick this up until they went back to the old mechanical methods of measuring lightspeed, as both atoms and photons seem to be slowing down at the same rate, thus it looked constant.  But wait a minute!!!   :o

 

If the vibrations are atoms are slowing down year by year, then in the past they must have been vibrating faster!  And when you work the math out, you can't have a universe that is billions are years old, because the atoms would be vibrating so fast they would destroy themselves ... but ohhhh we can't go there, can we :rolleyes: ... hence "The speed of light is a constant, *cough cough* nothing to see here ... move along please"

 

Anyhoo, getting off my soapbox...

This is also why they still class celestial time keeping as the most accurate, and why it's still used for space travel.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The speed of light is not a constant, in fact now with a Bose-Einstein Condensate, you can stop a beam of light, hold it stationary and they let it go back on its merry way at any speed you choose.  They have also discovered that light passing through a vacuum @ 20 degrees Celsius is slowing down year by year, as too are the vibrations of atoms.  They didn't pick this up until they went back to the old mechanical methods of measuring lightspeed, as both atoms and photons seem to be slowing down at the same rate, thus it looked constant.  But wait a minute!!!   :o

 

The speed of light is actually a well known constant, "c" ;). The problem is that it only applies in a vacuum!

 

Without a vacuum, light's nature as both an electromagnetic wave and a photon particle faces the prospect of interference with atoms and their electron shells. The phenomena known as "refraction" is known to everyone who has ever stuck a something into a glass of water and watched it twist and bend.

 

Hate to break it to you, but there has been no measurable change in the constant "c" other than changes made to improve its measurement to a more precise decimal number, and other than changes to correct for historical errors using antiquated equipment and flawed experiments. In other words, we Humans made lots of mistakes even since we first made a good measurement attempt in the 1670s by observing Jupiter's moon Io (I think it was about 30% of so off the true number - incredible work for the time by a brilliant Danish scientist Ole Romer). The constant speed of light in a vacuum is so constant, that it is actually how we define length in physics. The metric meter is currently defined this way.

 

If the vibrations are atoms are slowing down year by year, then in the past they must have been vibrating faster!  And when you work the math out, you can't have a universe that is billions are years old, because the atoms would be vibrating so fast they would destroy themselves ... but ohhhh we can't go there, can we :rolleyes: ... hence "The speed of light is a constant, *cough cough* nothing to see here ... move along please"

 

That's a bit illogical. The planet you're sitting on has existing for about 4.5B years in a universe with an age of 13.8B years. Believe me, we would have noticed if atomic vibrations, other than those driven by temperature alone, were slowing down. Also, energy can't be destroyed. If atom vibrations were slowing down, then where has all the energy gone to?

 

P.S. Watch the whole Clockwork documentary last night after thinking I'd just watch a few minutes and save it for later ;). Fascinating stuff! If I ever saw a self contained "boy" hand writing I would have sworn blind it was computer controlled until now.

Edited by PadraicB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PadraicB, on 12 Oct 2014 - 6:27 PM, said:

 

The speed of light is actually a well known constant, "c" ;). The problem is that it only applies in a vacuum!

 

Without a vacuum, light's nature as both an electromagnetic wave and a photon particle faces the prospect of interference with atoms and their electron shells. The phenomena known as "refraction" is known to everyone who has ever stuck a something into a glass of water and watched it twist and bend.

 

As I stated in my post, the measurement was in a vacuum within a temperature and pressure control.

 

PadraicB, on 12 Oct 2014 - 6:27 PM, said:

 Hate to break it to you, but there has been no measurable change in the constant "c" other than changes made to improve its measurement to a more precise decimal number, and other than changes to correct for historical errors using antiquated equipment and flawed experiments. In other words, we Humans made lots of mistakes even since we first made a good measurement attempt in the 1670s by observing Jupiter's moon Io (I think it was about 30% of so off the true number - incredible work for the time by a brilliant Danish scientist Ole Romer). The constant speed of light in a vacuum is so constant, that it is actually how we define length in physics. The metric meter is currently defined this way.

 

Sorry PadraicB, you need to keep up with the peer reviewed papers on the subject.

The slowing down of light and atoms was first documented in a peer reviewed paper, "The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time" by Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield in 1987.  Its a bit of a dry read, as more of these papers are, but it's all there for you to see.

 

There was also an article written by Steve Farrar of the London Sunday Times in 1998 which is a little less dry entitled "Speed of light slowing down"

 

...and there's of course more, but that gives you a good starting point.

 

 

PadraicB, on 12 Oct 2014 - 6:27 PM, said:

That's a bit illogical. The planet you're sitting on has existing for about 4.5B years in a universe with an age of 13.8B years.

 

Really?  Do you do know that; or do you believe that? 

Let me guess ... you read it in a book, along with "dinosaurs lived millions and millions of years ago..."

 

And they know this because Scientists date the age of the fossils by the rocks they are in. 

And how do they know the age of the rocks? 

Well, the age of the rocks is denoted by what fossils they find in them :p

 

Now you can choose to believe that if you want, but that's just your belief system ... don't call it science.

 

I myself have read different book, that's been peer reviewed for thousands of years, and still yet to be proven wrong.

It says "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day"

 

I choose that as my belief system, and you can choose to believe whatever book you want :)  But please don't state it as a scientific fact, when it's only a belief.

 

 

PadraicB, on 12 Oct 2014 - 6:27 PM, said:

Also, energy can't be destroyed.

 

The first LAW of thermodynamics ... yes I'm familiar with it. 

But you forgot to state the whole law ... naughty naughty!

 

"Energy can not be CREATED, nor destroyed within the cycle of a closed system."

 

So if this natural law states energy can not be created, please explain how all the energy within our "Closed system universe" was created?  It must have been done supernaturally ... and there we depart from science again into belief.  There is nothing scientific about Origins, it's ALL based on your worldview and belief system. 

 

If you want to believe all this complexity and design came about naturally by random chance ... go for it. 

But, to me, that's just as silly as saying that over billions of years an Omega Speedmaster would have eventually designed and build itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Nicolaus Copernicus summed it up best when, after spending a lifetime studying the heavens, when he said, "The mechanism of the universe, wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator, the system, the best, and most orderly artist of all, framed for our sake"

 

Man, I wish I could write like that :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Really?  Do you do know that; or do you believe that? 

Let me guess ... you read it in a book, along with "dinosaurs lived millions and millions of years ago..."

 

And they know this because Scientists date the age of the fossils by the rocks they are in. 

And how do they know the age of the rocks? 

Well, the age of the rocks is denoted by what fossils they find in them :P

 

Now you can choose to believe that if you want, but that's just your belief system ... don't call it science.

 

I myself have read different book, that's been peer reviewed for thousands of years, and still yet to be proven wrong.

It says "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day"

 

I choose that as my belief system, and you can choose to believe whatever book you want :)  But please don't state it as a scientific fact, when it's only a belief.

 

Ah. No offence, but the Bible is not a scientific book. I don't believe it's literally the precise words of God. I'll go so far as to "know" it. So understandably, you'll never convince me otherwise, and vice versa :). Also, I'm a Catholic and the guys with big hats or little round hats used to burn people like me so they keep out of science these days.

 

The age of the rocks, incidentally, does not rely on a fossil record. Typically it's based on the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes within the rock - radioactive decay rates are well established and can be confirmed in any lab using the base elements thus making it reasonably accurate. Dating using fossil content was a technique used before radioactivity was well researched. It's still used to a degree because fossil layers have been pre-dated using the radioactivity method - so it's a handy approximation until you can get samples tested properly. Also, the radioactivity method is not just one method - there are numerous radioactive elements that may be cross referenced depending on the rock and accuracy desired. Main point being - the underlying decay rates are very well established which gives radioactive dating significant weight as evidence.

 

 

...And the smooth movement of the swan! What do you say to that? Just beautiful.

 

The swan was freaky ;). The glass rods was an incredible idea. I was blown away by how intricate those cam stacks were - imagine carefully forming and shaping each one perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but...but...but...the swan!!! :) Come on man, the swan wasn't freaky, it was cool! If I had a big one I'll seek it on my mother-in-law, that's how cool it was! Smoooooth movements!

 

I also agree, all the rest was very cool and complicated specially the boy writing. Those are things you see without opening them up....once you check out the mechanisms involved you marvel at how far the imagination and the will of man can go. That's what is freaky! Specially when people use it for other means different than peaceful utilitarian/luxury objects to enhance our lifes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PadraicB, on 13 Oct 2014 - 02:37 AM, said:

Ah. No offence, but the Bible is not a scientific book. I don't believe it's literally the precise words of God. I'll go so far as to "know" it. So understandably, you'll never convince me otherwise, and vice versa :)

 

I never said the Bible was a scientific book.  But neither are books saying "billions and millions of years ago".  They BOTH have to be taken by faith, and are therefore religious.

Saying you "know" the words in the Bible are not the literal words of God is just being intellectually dishonest ... you believe that.

 

 

PadraicB, on 13 Oct 2014 - 02:37 AM, said:

Also, I'm a Catholic and the guys with big hats or little round hats used to burn people like me so they keep out of science these days.

 

What has the Roman Catholic Church got to do with the Bible?

The Scriptures were written by the Jews, preserved by the Jews, and people who believed it from cover to cover were the ones who were burned.

 

PadraicB, on 13 Oct 2014 - 02:37 AM, said:

The age of the rocks, incidentally, does not rely on a fossil record. Typically it's based on the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes within the rock - radioactive decay rates are well established and can be confirmed in any lab using the base elements thus making it reasonably accurate. Dating using fossil content was a technique used before radioactivity was well researched. It's still used to a degree because fossil layers have been pre-dated using the radioactivity method - so it's a handy approximation until you can get samples tested properly. Also, the radioactivity method is not just one method - there are numerous radioactive elements that may be cross referenced depending on the rock and accuracy desired. Main point being - the underlying decay rates are very well established which gives radioactive dating significant weight as evidence.

 

If you are talking about Carbon14, or Potassium-Argon testing both have the fundamental flaw in that the atmosphere needs to reach equilibrium of these isotopes before any accurate measurement can take place, this has still not yet happened: there amounts grow year by year.  Which is why the dating from those methods is all over the place.  By the way, the Geologic Column was established in the 1800s long before any of these methods existed, and they still use it today ... they had none of these so called "testing methods" back then, just picked some numbers that they believed best illustrated their worldview.

 

Like you said, I'll never convince you, just like you'll never answer the question I posed you regarding the First Law of Thermodynamics (no one ever does).

You have put your total faith in evolution and random chance making everything we see around us; and I have put my total faith in a supreme being who designed and created everything we see around us.

 

All I suggest is that each and every one looks into this matter seriously, on your own.  Don't just believe what people say, including me, check it all out.  Be absolutely sure through your own efforts, that what you believe is right ... enough to bet your soul on it, because indeed you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bearing in mind that this is a worldwide forum, I respectfully suggest that we keep our opinions on all religions and politics out of the forum, as both have caused so much trouble over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thanks for the welcome folks.  I'm in the SF bay area, California. I'm not a big fan of eBay so I think I'll just continue to scout the thrift shops for a pocket watch or even clock. Was also my thought a larger movement should be my first go.  
    • Hello Rexxus. i too started on pocket watches and started winding by hand.  i understand most professionals, of which I am NOT one, consider it bad practice.  However, what works, works! i stopped doing it by hand simply because it hurt my fingers to do so and I had been slapped in the face 137 times too often by particularly cheeky springs.  I bought the model in you picture years ago and love it.  There are two main drawbacks IMHO.  1. As nickelsilver suggests, the older ones tend to be work, particularly in the material that grips the spring in the center.  Thus it can slip quite often.  2. This model nay has one arbor size.  That means if you work on smaller movements with smaller springs, you may bend the center out of shape or even break it.  In the case of wrist watches and smaller sprinted movements, it won’t fit at all.   you can buy new winders one arbor at a time and build your set to your needs.  They are a bit more expensive per arbor than a set, but if you don’t need a complete set, you save money and get the right tool.  I must admit to coveting Marks Bergeon set in his videos even though I will NEVER need all those sizes.   best of luck and do reach out with pocket watch questions and suggestions.  I love to compare experiences.
    • You need to sort this out, it is too far away from the collet, try to remove the kinks.    This is the type of tweezers.  Dumont® 00 Carbon Steel Polished Tweezers To Curve Breguet Hairsprings
    • Congratulations. 
×
×
  • Create New...