For example, following Galileo"s experiment: placing a leader inclined and making a tiny sphere rolling upon it.

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

When the round passes by over a heat of the ruler, one unit the time has passed.

Of course the trouble arises that if mine lines top top the leader are equidistant, I will measure time together accelerating.

But return unconventional, that would be a method to measure up time with a ruler.

Isn"t it?


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

JustinW


Posted December 2, 2011

JustinW

MoleculeSenior Members 2
Posted December 2, 2011

or you can measure distance through a clock. I don"t know... That was simply the very first thing the popped right into my head while reading the question.

 

It renders scence come me, yet you can only begin measuring when the sphere reached terminal velocity. Not to cite it would have actually 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 an elderly Members 230
Posted December 2, 2011 (edited)

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

 

Ditto walk for known times.

 

If you were really quick (or c to be slow) friend might be able to do a direct measurement that time v a ruler using relativity, however only who else"s time.

 

Other interesting and also relevant fact:

c is now identified as a ratio. So ranges are in reality measured with clocks (and light, or some various other speed of light phenomenon).

We execute this due to the fact that our clocks are an extremely very good, while ours distance associated apparatus space merely very good.

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

md65536


Posted December 3, 2011

md65536

PrimateSenior Members 386
Posted December 3, 2011

For example, complying with Galileo"s experiment: placing a ruler inclined and making a small sphere rolling upon it.

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

Of course the problem arises the if my lines top top the leader are equidistant, I will certainly measure time together accelerating.


No, you would certainly measure the ball to be accelerating.

The reason you can measure time this method is that the round is moving in a precise, consistent, recognized way. That is well-known that that is accelerating, and the rate of acceleration is known (as a role of g and the angle of the ramp; lock would need to be specifically fixed and/or well-known in order to use this come tell time precisely). So friend can create a formula to explain the motion of the sphere, and find t native that, and if everything"s exact you"ll find t to behave just as expected. An altering the spacing that your mite marks doesn"t affect time, nor does the edge of the ramp, though they"ll influence the formula and measurements.

 

 

Perhaps girlfriend can develop some helpful time-like residential property measured by equal spacing of lines on the ruler, however that isn"t time (as measured in regular intervals by various other clocks).


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

michel123456


Posted December 3, 2011

michel123456

GeniusPseudoscientist 547
Author
Posted December 3, 2011

If girlfriend were an extremely quick (or c was slow) friend might be able to do a direct measurement the time with a ruler using relativity, yet only who else"s time.

 

Other interesting and also relevant fact:

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

We do this because our clocks are really very good, while ours distance connected apparatus are merely really good.


 

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

 

So i was wondering, when you make wood ruler, and also put it just like the on her desk, it does not measure time. If you light it, about theory it becomes a clock, with the only problem that irradiate goes also fast: you cannot observe the rays getting to the an initial line the the ruler, climate the second line, and also so on. The leader seems to be lighted every at once.

 

Also, you could take the ruler and make it on slide on an lean plane. That would be the turning back of Galileo"s form of experiment. So that a moving ruler would certainly transform in a clock.

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

Then, you can state the the leader does not measure time since the leader is comoving v you in spacetime. If girlfriend choosed another FOR in spacetime, the ruler would it is in a clock because that this FOR.

 

And if the above is correct, one could make a statement complying with which the ruler is a clock for every FOR various from the ruler"s FOR. IOW the leader is no a clock just for its very own FOR.