# No subject

Sat May 1 12:37:47 UTC 2010

```all. It cant be measured, we measure the dynamic behaviour of  'things'
within time, not time itself. To measure you need to take a measure, the
rules of a measurement minimal change to what is being measured. We could
have a billion frequency standards in an area, and apart from increasing the
density of mass in the area, we would not change time. (The assumption is
you dont compress the thunderbolts so dense that you have to use the special
rules of relativity) The concept of time if an oditity, its the same at all
points, but the universe is like measuring jelly with an elastic band! The
universe is expanding at the speed of light, we sit within the ring of this,
we rotate, the solar system does, as do the gallaxies. The concept of any
measure thus becomes problematic, as even the centre of the orginal super
mass, at the start of the big bang, might not be the current assumed center,
this relies on uniform expansion. So is there a reference frame that can be
used, other than two perspectives, or more. Forces come in pairs as well,
frames come in pairs, but time? Unipolar and uniform?

To end this potted note on the pendulum, there is something called pendulum
sympathy. The mass of one pendulum, close to another will mutually effect
each other. The pendulum has had it, regards the recording of time, but it
is fantastic in education to open up pandoras box, what is gravity and what
is energy, we know the latter becomes mass and a force that is left over in
this loop of energy, gravity. Without it nothing would attract, we would
have a universe of uniformity, nothing would join!

It is vital that we preserve the journey, how we attempted to first record
the passing of time, to the synchronisation of society, to the future and
beyond. Nyquist to quote, the highest frequency of the plant, means the
sample time is half this, to be controllable, in a causual system. This is
challenged by predictive control, that if you had a model so good, you could
not tell it from plant, you could vary time and also make time run in
parallel and at different rates. But to run the model twice as fast as
reality, to optimise the clock you would need a clock for the model, oh
another pandoras box, nothing for nothing, something we all want. So does
the clock (sample rate) always have to be twice as fast as what can be
controlled?

I hope that was not too much of the record, and hope you enjoyed the
journey.

We currently need public support for the project, so if you could join the
facebook on www.timemachinefun.com we would all be very grateful.

If any of you want to display to the public your heritage you have saved,
the history, what the item was used for, this is living history, it needs to
be captured. I sadly see turret clocks every day out of their context. There
history and duty to us wiped away. A simple post card, that offer a way of
recording tracability, will make you frequency standards preserved with
there history. For this we run www.clocktrust.com and have a historic
frequency standard group, pendulum based, the synchronome. We also run
www.reclaimfun.com, where children take apart mass produced items and do a
treasure trail to find the beating heart, the oscillator.

Very best wishes Paul
Paul Strickland

```