|
05 Dec 18 - 12:11 AM (#3964823) Subject: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: robomatic There are phrases used without hardly any thought given to them before utterance. Some Yay-hoo probably first said it without any thought. Among 'em are "Who can comprehend infinity?", "Science can prove that a bumblee can't fly", "The human brain only uses 5% of its cells" and today's fave: "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day" I can't stand that. Okay smart guy, if that stopped clock is ever right, how about telling me WHEN it's right? Not so smart are ya now, Mr. Einstein! So do you agree? How can a stopped clock ever be right? |
|
05 Dec 18 - 12:54 AM (#3964827) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Joe Offer WHAT??? Of course a stopped clock is right twice a day. But yeah, I guess that from some perspectives, it isn't. This is a question for Mudcat's own semi-professional philosopher, Bill_D. Bill, Help!!! -Joe- |
|
05 Dec 18 - 01:01 AM (#3964830) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Stilly River Sage Obviously we're talking about a 12-hour chronometer with hands pointing at the hour and minute, in which case, the "real" time and the stopped clock's time will be synchronous twice a day. It isn't a difficult concept, actually, if you grew up in an analog world. *I didn't finish the philosophy master's, but I was only two classes shy. That should be enough for this question. :) |
|
05 Dec 18 - 09:55 AM (#3964898) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: robomatic In order for a stopped clock to BE right, you have to have a way to KNOW that it's right, and for that you need ANOTHER clock (and a way to tell that IT's right, but that's another thread). So I maintain that the notion that the stopped clock is 'ever' right is nonsense. |
|
05 Dec 18 - 10:17 AM (#3964905) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Stilly River Sage Nope. Just because YOU don't know the clock is correct doesn't mean the clock isn't, in fact, correct. You need to remove yourself from the equation. The clock doesn't have to prove anything to you. |
|
05 Dec 18 - 10:22 AM (#3964908) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Iains You are discussing a constant in terms of trying to define a dynamic process. Time flows. There is no static point to allow for such a measurement. It is merely a useful construct that has been adopted as being of use. |
|
05 Dec 18 - 12:21 PM (#3964940) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Bee-dubya-ell I remember reading an explanation of the "bumble bees can't fly" thing. It shows how one can reach totally absurd conclusions by applying good data to the wrong type of system. In this case, a dynamic-wing system is treated as stationary-winged. What the calculations prove is that a bumble bee can't glide, not that it can't fly. Its wing surface area is not adequate to keep it airborne, but only if it doesn't flap its wings, which it does.... |
|
05 Dec 18 - 12:53 PM (#3964949) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: robomatic SRS Your answer renders the statement meaningless. If you can't KNOW it's correct than you know nothing. |
|
05 Dec 18 - 01:20 PM (#3964957) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: DMcG SRS is right. Imagine this somewhat complicated situation: You have a stopped watch, and for reasons unknown are broadcasting a video of it live, perhaps via facebook, skype or similar. I am watching the broadcast, with a silent microphone so you cannot see or hear me. But I have a working watch. So *I* can tell when the times coincide. And at that time, the watch is correct, even though you don't know it. |
|
05 Dec 18 - 03:08 PM (#3964979) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: JHW The little hand on the clock at the Jet Miners FC has stopped but the big hand is still going... |
|
05 Dec 18 - 03:11 PM (#3964980) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: DMcG An interesting twist on this, by the way, is that if you have a watch that loses 1 second gradually throughout each day is right less often than a stopped one ... |
|
05 Dec 18 - 03:18 PM (#3964983) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Iains Surely that should be gained one second? If it lost a second it would pass the correct time twice in 24 hours, and once for the converse case. |
|
05 Dec 18 - 03:32 PM (#3964985) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Steve Shaw In scientific terms, time doesn't have fixed points. Our hours, minutes and seconds (and nanoseconds and millionths of nanoseconds) are all inventions for convenience (even scientific convenience). So it depends whether you mean human-convenient time (in which case the statement is OK for practical purposes) or real time (in which case it don't apply). I'll get me coat. |
|
05 Dec 18 - 04:15 PM (#3965000) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Mr Red for that you need ANOTHER clock for the stopped clock to be right twice a day we also need a few pedants and for it to be never right, you need a few more pedants. And for another clock you need the Sun. Call me a pedant. |
|
06 Dec 18 - 03:57 AM (#3965062) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: BobL Philosophical question. Suppose you check the time from a clock which, unknown to you, has stopped. But the actual time just happens to be the value it shows. So you go away knowing, pretty well by accident, what the correct time is. Or do you? |
|
06 Dec 18 - 04:23 AM (#3965065) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: DMcG I was assuming, Iains, that you never reset the watch. In which case, whether is loses or gains a second it is only right every 43200 days or so. |
|
06 Dec 18 - 04:30 AM (#3965067) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Iains DMcG I merely demonstrate that measuring any time as a static point in a dynamic system is not possible in absolute terms. But to do so in "practical" terms is very useful. Mr Harrison devoted many years to the construction of a chronometers that enabled the modern determination of longitude, and as a result, saved many lives. |
|
06 Dec 18 - 04:52 AM (#3965069) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: DMcG I agree, but in practise what we do is consider times correct if they differ by some delta. In typical use, that means we normally regard clocks that differ by a minute or so as showing the same time, but not if they differ by an hour. So we uae a quantized time rather than a continuous one. The size of the quantum varies depending on purpose. For most project management a day is precise enough, but for many scientific purpose you may be at the nanosecond level. There is an interesting consequence of this: given three times it is possible that a = b and b = c but a != c. |
|
06 Dec 18 - 05:04 AM (#3965072) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Iains https://themindunleashed.com/2015/02/time-never-never-will.html and now I will get both my hat and coat! |
|
06 Dec 18 - 09:49 AM (#3965091) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: SPB-Cooperator This has an added complication, as this depends if the perosn who is experiencing time is travelling at the same velocity as the stopped clock (I think) - so |
|
06 Dec 18 - 09:54 AM (#3965093) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: SPB-Cooperator So a stopped clock would be correct twice a day compared with measurement of time from a fixed point of reference (eg GMT), and from a mutually agreed device that would be the arbiter of what the time is. Also, form a simpler perspective - the stopped clock is correct several times a day from the perspective of time zones. Special Relativity just make things more complex. |
|
06 Dec 18 - 10:07 AM (#3965098) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Iains SPB-Cooperator Nothing in life is simple! |
|
06 Dec 18 - 10:22 AM (#3965102) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: DMcG Lewis Carroll's Two Clocks puzzle I'm putting on my top hat, ... |
|
06 Dec 18 - 10:28 AM (#3965104) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Donuel DMcG I am shocked you forgot that all clocks stop at the center of a black hole. But no one knows for how long. ;^/ |
|
06 Dec 18 - 10:30 AM (#3965105) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Dave the Gnome What if the stopped clock is always right and it is reality that is right only twice a day? |
|
06 Dec 18 - 11:00 AM (#3965106) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Donuel What if all light and particles that move at the speed of light are at a stop and everything else is moving? |
|
06 Dec 18 - 11:39 AM (#3965113) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Bee-dubya-ell A stopped clock is not a timepiece, it is an artifact. Its hands represent a time in the past, not the present or future. A photograph of a clock also represents a time in the past. Nobody would say a photograph of a clock is right twice a day, would they? |
|
06 Dec 18 - 12:32 PM (#3965120) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Iains If it became small enough you might see double. That would be confusing. |
|
06 Dec 18 - 12:40 PM (#3965121) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Donuel BWL Spoken like a lawyer |
|
06 Dec 18 - 01:02 PM (#3965125) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Doug Chadwick Science can prove that a bumblebee can't fly ... but the bumblebee doesn't know anything about science so it flies anyway. DC |
|
06 Dec 18 - 01:20 PM (#3965129) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: DMcG Science can prove that a bumblebee can't fly ... addendum: The commonly sentence is flawed, of course. Had it been 'Science cannot prove how a bumblebee can fly' it would (at one time) have been correct. It is really a statement about human knowledge and understanding, not bees. And there is often a good reason to remind ourselves how little we know. Which is, in fact, a great and encouraging thing. Going back to the clocks a moment. What does irritate me a bit about the phrase is that it gets used in the wrong circumstances. With the clocks, I argue stopped one is right sometimes, even though you do not know when. But the sentence is almost always used when someone is demonstrably right, and typically in a way to demean them slightly. |
|
06 Dec 18 - 01:27 PM (#3965130) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Donuel There’s an oft repeated “fact” that the humble bumblebee defies all known laws of physics every time it flaps its tiny little bee wings and ascends to the sky. Now obviously this is false, since, well, bumblebees fly all the time and if every time a bee took off it was tearing physics apart, we’d probably realize that was the case when two thirds of our population disappeared after being pulled into tiny, bee-shaped black holes. And, certainly if this was the case, every physicist dreaming of a Nobel Prize would be devoting all their time to breaking the code of bumblebee flight in order to disprove some bit of our understanding of physics. That being said, if you work out the math behind the flight of the bumblebee, you’ll find that it actually shouldn’t be able to fly… so long as you don’t take into account all the relevant factors, which seems to be how this myth got started. Basically, if you calculate it all assuming bumblebees fly like airplanes, then sure, the bumblebee shouldn’t be able to fly. But, of course, bumblebees don’t fly like airplanes. So where and when did this myth start? The often repeated story goes that many years ago an engineer and a biologist were having dinner and a few drinks, after the topic of conversation turned to each person’s respective field. The biologist asked the engineer to work out how a bee flew- scientists partied wicked hard back in those days. The engineer, keen to show off his skills, quickly jotted down a few calculations and came to the conclusion, that holy crap, a bee shouldn’t be able to fly. Today, the story is fully ingrained in pop culture and many sites and people without looking into the matter, repeat it as fact, even though one wonders how such a drunken mathematician had the pertinent numbers on hand to perform such calculations on the spot… Hell, the Dreamworks Animation film, Bee Movie, with a budget of $150 million apparently couldn’t spare a few bucks to consult a physicist on the matter, and opened with a variation of the “bee’s shouldn’t be able to fly” myth on a title card, and that’s a film aimed at children, in 2007! Man, we really should be investing more money in schools or at least more factually accurate bee based movies. As to the origin, it’s always possible, albeit somewhat unlikely, that a drunken scientist did indeed make a “back of an envelope (in some versions it’s a napkin) calculation” that proved bee’s shouldn’t be able to fly. An origin theory with a tad more documented evidence behind it, pins it on a French book published in 1934, Le vol des insects, which makes passing reference to that fact that simple calculations yield a result that suggests insects, not just bumblebees, shouldn’t be able to fly. Some say it was German physicist Ludwig Prandtl who was responsible for popularizing and spreading the myth amongst his peers, whereas others claim that the original calculations were made by one Jacob Ackeret, a Swiss gas dynamists. In the aforementioned earliest known reference to such an idea, Le vol des insects, Antoine Magnan, the author, claims the calculations, in regards to insects disobeying the laws of physics, were made by his friend and assistant, André Sainte-Laguë. Of course, the author should have been skeptical on the accuracy of his friend’s calculations and assumptions given that many insects can fly, but here we are. So while we can’t be sure he was truly the first, the first known calculations on the subject were made by Sainte-Laguë, though this fact doesn’t necessarily mean that another physicist didn’t do similar calculations during a drunken argument, which is good because we like that part of the story. What isn’t known is how the fact first eked into the public consciousness, and it’s likely we’ll never find out due to it being so long ago. As for the calculations themselves, scientists, engineers and entomologists have gone to great lengths to discredit them, as the original calculations failed to take into account a number of facts about the bee. Most pertinent of these is that bumblebees don’t fly like a plane and they don’t have stiff, rigid wings. With that in mind, the original calculations, which were based mostly on the surface area of the bee’s wings and its weight, aren’t really applicable, since they neglect several factors that need to be taken into account for an accurate calculation. For example, “the effect of dynamic stall“, which would take too long to explain in this article, which is already creeping up on “too long”. So I’ll just briefly say that “Aerodynamic bodies subjected to pitching motions or oscillations exhibit a stalling behavior different from that observed when the flow over a wing at a fixed angle of attack separates” and then refer you to the following if you’re interested in reading up on the subject, which is actually pretty surprisingly interesting; although I was technically being paid to read it, so perhaps that colored my view on it: Dynamic Stall The reality is that bees and comparable insects fly in an incredibly complex way that utilises, get this, mini hurricanes! We’ll link all this stuff at the bottom in the references if you’re interesting in the nitty gritty physics, but in lay terms, bees fly by rotating their wings, which creates pockets of low air pressure, which in turn create small eddies above the bee’s wing which lift it into the air and, thus, grant it the ability to fly. To find this out, scientists have conducted a variety of tests using bees, the most awesome one being by Chinese scientist, Lijang Zeng and his team, who devised system comprised of lasers and tiny mirrors glued to bees back in 2001. This experiment was deemed superior to previous tests, as it didn’t need to use tethered bees (which fly differently) and because it contained lasers, which is of course super cool. We’re fairly certain that a laboratory full of Asian scientists firing tiny laser beams at bees covered in shiny body armor is going to be the next big Syfy channel hit, so remember that you heard about it here first. In fact, the way bees and other comparable creatures fly is so efficient and causes so little drag, that research into the subject has been backed by various militaries in an attempt to mimic this method of flight with our own tiny insect-like robots, which is just a recipe for another Syfy hit. So, around 80 years ago a scientist or mathematician of some sort made a rough, mistake filled calculation that claimed bees couldn’t fly. Fast forward almost a century and scientists today are still trying to erase that mistake from the public consciousness with increasingly complex experiments to prove the simple fact that bumblebees can, in fact, fly, and that this doesn’t violate any of our understanding of the laws of physics. The fact that they even had to bother doing this when they could have simply pointed out of the nearest window, with their palm firmly planted on their foreheads, at bees flying around, perhaps says a lot about the gullibility of our species. In the end, as I make my living off dispelling such myths, but of course stopped clocks do not fly like airplanes. |
|
06 Dec 18 - 02:45 PM (#3965144) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Doug Chadwick Flipping heck Donuel! How did you manage to write so much on a throwaway comment about bumblebees? DC |
|
06 Dec 18 - 03:16 PM (#3965150) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Donuel The disadvantage to the AI autopost maker 3000 is that they do not fit in the box. :^/ |
|
07 Dec 18 - 02:48 AM (#3965193) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Rusty Dobro Fortunately, Donald Trump's attitude to the environment means that soon there will be no bees left to wonder about... |
|
07 Dec 18 - 08:39 AM (#3965241) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Donuel Nicotinoids are the cause of the Bee holocaust for over 30 years. France has banned them BUT The US decided to phase out the poison over 15 years (we sell the stuff) |
|
07 Dec 18 - 09:43 AM (#3965253) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Iains Donuel not just France. https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/neonicotinoids-are-banned/ |
|
07 Dec 18 - 11:03 AM (#3965272) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Stilly River Sage Always pisses me off to bring home a new plant that is destined for a pot, only to find during transplant, buried deep in the foliage, a plastic stick stating it has been "protected" with nicotinoids. Those go back to the store. |
|
07 Dec 18 - 02:12 PM (#3965298) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: robomatic SRS, that bit about potting is a new one for me. If a plant is "protected with nicotinoids" is it bad for people? |
|
07 Dec 18 - 03:32 PM (#3965317) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Iains Robomatic a link that might lead to a partial answer. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-014-3229-5?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRolvanLZKXonjHpfsX64uktX6G%2BlMI/0ER3fOvrPUfGjI |
|
07 Dec 18 - 04:06 PM (#3965322) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Stilly River Sage It's bad for bees and other pollinators. |
|
10 Dec 18 - 04:34 AM (#3965735) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: SPB-Cooperator Is it 'technically' as opposed to 'morally' possible to harvest useless Republican embreyo's and genetically engineer them into a more useful species? |
|
10 Dec 18 - 10:21 AM (#3965791) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Donuel Will the flower's nectar poison hummingbirds? (a question I asked 30 years ago) |
|
10 Dec 18 - 11:03 AM (#3965798) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Little Hawk I wonder if Shane has ever managed to be right twice in one day? |
|
12 Dec 18 - 09:56 AM (#3965907) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Bee-dubya-ell Yes, Shane has bee right twice in one day. In fact, he was right twice within five minutes. It was back when he spent some time in jail after breaking into that liquor store. He was right the first time when he was tossed into the jail cell, looked at his cell mate, and said, "You sure are a big ugly son of a bitch!" He was right the second time, just a few minutes later, when he said, "My asshole sure does hurt!" |
|
12 Dec 18 - 10:36 AM (#3965908) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: SPB-Cooperator To decide if the clock is ever right or not, we need to establish whether time is ever right. |
|
12 Dec 18 - 11:10 AM (#3965921) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Donuel Depending upon mass, time can go faster or slower. The Atomic time at Greenwich is only right for that latitude and altitude. If we didn't correct for this relativity, GPS would go wrong in moments. If you race away from the face of a clock AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT (impossible) the time on the clock would not change from your point of view even if you could see it a parsec away. Has time stopped? No, it just looks that way to you. Your own watch will give you a more accurate indication of time lapsed. |
|
12 Dec 18 - 11:53 AM (#3965931) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: SPB-Cooperator I concede the observer would have to have zero mass because of the special relativity mass equation. |
|
15 Dec 18 - 11:58 AM (#3966395) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: FreddyHeadey Thanks DMcG for the Lewis Carroll link. The last line there is one which could be repeated in other places I know "There, that'll do; the more you argue the further you get from the point, so it will be as well to stop." |
|
16 Dec 18 - 03:15 AM (#3966513) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: DMcG Round about the time Lewis Carroll wrote the "Two Clocks" problem he also wrote a neat demonstration of the need for a date line as a puzzle. I can't find a reference to it on line, but the basic idea is this. You set off at noon, so the sun is directly overhead, and ask everyone you meet what day of the week it is. "Tuesday", they say. You keep walking with the sun directly overhead at all times, and asking people. "Tuesday" they say. After 24 hours, you are back where you started and ask the day of the week. "Wednesday" comes the response. SO there must be some point on the journey where you moved but a short distance but people stopped saying "Tuesday" and started saying "Wednesday". |
|
16 Dec 18 - 04:39 AM (#3966523) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Doug Chadwick Theoretically, 180deg longitude. In practice, the international date line. It moves east or west to avoid going directly through land and thus splitting a country in two. For those countries close to the line, they choose which side depending if their trade is generally with the Americas or Asia/Australasia. Some countries have switched sides more than once as their trading relationships change. DC |
|
16 Dec 18 - 05:10 AM (#3966527) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: DMcG That's how we have things set up now. But in 1890-ish when he wrote of the problem, many people did not realise there was even an issue. Sailors had, for a long time, but it did not impinge on most people's lives before fast communication and travel. |
|
16 Dec 18 - 05:14 AM (#3966528) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: DMcG Phrasing that differently, the international date line is how we solve the problem. Lewis Carroll's puzzle showed ordinary people - ie not sailors - that there was a problem in the first place. |
|
16 Dec 18 - 06:52 AM (#3966546) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Doug Chadwick To the Victorians, "now" would be whatever time it was in Great Britain or, more specifically, in London. Greenwich, by definition, is where the East finishes and the West begins, so it would have been obvious that anything as strange as Tuesday becoming Wednesday, would happen on the opposite side of the world. DC |
|
16 Dec 18 - 12:03 PM (#3966602) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Donuel China has one time zone which makes high noon a relative experience. When time is under extreme pressure do you suppose it has inertia? |
|
16 Dec 18 - 01:20 PM (#3966622) Subject: RE: BS: Is a Stopped Clock Ever Right? HELL NO From: Iains A problem was discovered when it came to running trains to a timetable. Britain only unified time in 1840, when Railway time was the standardised time arrangement first applied by the Great Western Railway in England. "The development of railway networks in North America in the 1850s, India in around 1860, and in Europe, prompted the introduction of standard time influenced by geography, industrial development, and political governance. The key goals behind introducing railway time were to overcome the confusion caused by having non-uniform local times in each town and station stop along the expanding railway network and to reduce the incidence of accidents and near misses, which were becoming more frequent as the number of train journeys increased." Interestingly the great western introduced a very early telegraph system in 1838,although Samuel Morse patented a far superior system in 1837. |