For example, following Galileo"s experiment: putting a ruler inclined and making a small sphere rolling upon it.

You are watching: Clock is to time as ruler is to

When the sphere passes by over a line of the ruler, one unit of time has passed.

Of course the problem arises that if my lines on the ruler are equidistant, I will measure time as accelerating.

But although unconventional, that would be a way to measure time with a ruler.

Isn"t it?


Link to commentShare on other sitesMore sharing options...
*

JustinW


Posted December 2, 2011

JustinW

MoleculeSenior Members 2
Posted December 2, 2011

or you could measure distance with a clock. I don"t know... It was just the first thing that popped into my head while reading the question.

 

It makes scence to me, but you could only start measuring once the sphere reached terminal velocity. Not to mention it would have be one hell of a long ruler or time would stop. (figuratively speaking)


Link to commentShare on other sitesMore sharing options...
*

Schrödinger's hat


Posted December 2, 2011

Schrödinger's hat

Psychic Sexpert Senior Members 230
Posted December 2, 2011 (edited)

Well once you have known distances and (predictably) moving objects, you"ve made yourself a clock.

 

Ditto goes for known times.

 

If you were very quick (or c was slow) you might be able to do a direct measurement of time with a ruler using relativity, but only someone else"s time.

 

Other interesting and relevant fact:

c is now defined as a ratio. So distances are actually measured with clocks (and light, or some other speed of light phenomenon).

We do this because our clocks are very very good, while our distance related apparatus are merely very good.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Schrödinger's hat
Link to commentShare on other sitesMore sharing options...
*

md65536


Posted December 3, 2011

md65536

PrimateSenior Memberns 386
Posted December 3, 2011

For example, following Galileo"s experiment: putting a ruler inclined and making a small sphere rolling upon it.

When the sphere passes by over a line of the ruler, one unit of time has passed.

Of course the problem arises that if my lines on the ruler are equidistant, I will measure time as accelerating.


No, you would measure the sphere to be accelerating.

The reason you can measure time this way is that the ball is moving in a precise, consistent, known way. It is known that it is accelerating, and the rate of acceleration is known (as a function of g and the angle of the ramp; they would need to be precisely fixed and/or known in order to use this to tell time precisely). So you can create a formula to describe the movement of the sphere, and find t from that, and if everything"s accurate you"ll find t to behave just as expected. Changing the spacing of your tick marks doesn"t affect time, nor does the angle of the ramp, though they"ll affect the formula and measurements.

 

 

Perhaps you can create some useful time-like property measured by equal spacing of lines on the ruler, but that isn"t time (as measured in consistent intervals by other clocks).


Link to commentShare on other sitesMore sharing options...
*

michel123456


Posted December 3, 2011

michel123456

GeniusPseudoscientisns 547
Author
Posted December 3, 2011

If you were very quick (or c was slow) you might be able to do a direct measurement of time with a ruler using relativity, but only someone else"s time.

 

Other interesting and relevant fact:

c is now defined as a ratio. So distances are actually measured with clocks (and light, or some other speed of light phenomenon).

We do this because our clocks are very very good, while our distance related apparatus are merely very good.


 

Theoretically you could use a ruler to measure C, indeed. If C was much slower that could be a very simple experiment.

 

So I was wondering, when you make wooden ruler, and put it simply like that on your desk, it does not measure time. If you light it, theoretically it becomes a clock, with the only problem that light goes too fast: you cannot observe the rays reaching the first line of the ruler, then the second line, and so on. The ruler seems to be lighted all at once.

 

Also, you could take the ruler and make it slide on an inclined plane. That would be the reverse of Galileo"s type of experiment. So that a moving ruler would transform in a clock.

See more: Prentice Hall Realidades 2 Workbook Answers Page 47 Answers, Solutions To Practice Workbook 2

Then, you could state that the ruler does not measure time because the ruler is comoving with you in spacetime. If you choosed another FOR in spacetime, the ruler would be a clock for this FOR.

 

And if the above is correct, one could make a statement following which the ruler is a clock for all FOR different from the ruler"s FOR. IOW the ruler is not a clock only for its own FOR.