How About This For Accuracy!

This is ridiculous and you know it. The time displayed in the image is exactly 55 minutes, not a little after, not a little before, it is exactly 55:00.

No, the time displayed is 55:00.000 - that is not exact, it is only to the nearest millisecond.  The marker is less than 1 millisecond from the 55:00.000, so within the resolution of the display, the time displayed IS correctly indicating the time of the cursor.

This is ridiculous and you know it.

Actually, having read this thread all along, I find your quote most applicable to you.  

I am not a mathematical genius nor should I expect to be, in order to understand that 55:00:00 is in fact not 55:00:00. And why is 55:00:00 exact in AA1.5?

Oh but it isn't .. oh really?

All I'm concerend with as a user is that the marker and the time written match up, and they don't. Does Adobe really expect every AA2 user to be mathematically aware enough about this to just accept that the marker is now off and it's OK -- THIS is what's ridiculous.

No amount of explanations are going to make me see that 55:00:00 is in fact not bloody 55:00:00 in AA2 haha   . Just tell me when they're going to fix it.

No amount of explanations are going to make me see that 55:00:00 is in fact not bloody 55:00:00 in AA2 haha   . Just tell me when they're going to fix it.

Well, unfortunately for you, it could very easily be argued that they have...

I think that Heisenberg would have the last laugh here! (Mind you, I can't be sure when or where...)

maybe never where AND when but certainly where OR when is within the realm of the possible?

And why is 55:00:00 exact in AA1.5?

is it?

And why is 55:00:00 exact in AA1.5?

is it?

Good point, zemlin.  I'll just add that 1.0 is not better.


Nor is CE2000

I think that Heisenberg would have the last laugh here! (Mind you, I can't be sure when or where...)

maybe never where AND when but certainly where OR when is within the realm of the possible?

It might be quite painful, but if you think about this for long enough, you'll realise that it's not, really. That's why it's referred to as the uncertainty principle... If you can make any estimate at all, it can only be after the event - you can go back and say that at this instant, it was there. But because of the granular nature of time (and the very distinct possibility that it also dissapears in the quantum foam which might constitute its own 'noise'), you will never really know at all with any more than a defined degree of certainty, and not an absolute one.

The same thing happens within CEP/AA. The granularity is the sample, and if no sampling instant falls at one of the decimal time interval points (which are only accurate to within 3dp, which is nothing in terms of what we can actually measure if we want), then you'll never be able to land the cursor there with any more than a defined degree of accuracy that depends entirely on the sampling rate. CEP/AA is absolutely correct in the way it indicates what's going on here (the resolution changes with the zoom level), and I'm afraid that BFM appears not to have fully grasped the concepts behind this - for whatever reason.

CEP/AA is absolutely correct in the way it indicates what's going on here

I would prefer it to round rather than truncate, but as we know what the program does, it is probably more a matter of taste. One can always switch to sample display and get as accurate information as Heisenberg allows  

...because of the granular nature of time (and the very distinct possibility that it also dissapears in the quantum foam which might constitute its own 'noise'...

Cosmic time-space continuum jitter?  Clearly then must be a digital system, and until it's put back to analog, the universe just won't seem right.

[exists at all]

...because of the granular nature of time (and the very distinct possibility that it also dissapears in the quantum foam which might constitute its own 'noise'...

Cosmic time-space continuum jitter?  Clearly then must be a digital system, and until it's put back to analog, the universe just won't seem right.

Ah, I said the granular nature - and this is only the way it seems to us. In order to measure anything, we have to make it granular, whether it actually is or not. Time appears to be granular, because we experience it relative to a neural body clock within us. As a result of our basic human perception of it, we have subdivided it over and over again - and each time we do this, it remains granular (to us). But what we haven't yet observed is whether there is any limit to the grain size... and if time a) exists at all, and b) is an analog thing, then we won't be able to.

The genetic components that give us a body clock exist in all plants and animals, apparently - they are basic components of life. And if they weren't there, how would we ever be able to determine what 'life' was anyway?

[exists at all]

In order to measure anything, we have to make it granular ... we have subdivided it over and over again ... if time a) exists at all ...

How do you measure anything?  You subdivide it, and then move from the beginning to the end of the subdivided unit.  The measure is the distance travelled by something, from beginning to end.  That process is easier to imagine with an anolog clock where the second hand and minute hands move.  Digital clocks make it more difficult to get the connection between movement and the passage of time, but I'm sure something must be moving in order to tell the digital clock how long to wait before ticking off the next second.  Isn't the world's official time piece run by the vibration (movement back and forth) of something at the atomic level?

Time seems to be defined by movement - hence the high schoolers quandry:  how fast does time move?  Put another way:  if nothing in the universe moved at all, even down to the atomic vibration level, would time exist?

How do you measure anything?  You subdivide it, and then move from the beginning to the end of the subdivided unit.  The measure is the distance travelled by something, from beginning to end.  That process is easier to imagine with an anolog clock where the second hand and minute hands move.

Fundamentally, I don't think you measure things like this at all on a human scale, really. You start with a small unit of measurement, and multiply it, not divide it. We started out with measurements based on the lengths of part of the hand and foot, and used multiples of these to determine the lengths of things, or distance between them. We did the same thing with time - it wasn't based on an oscillation at all initially, but how long it took for sand or water to trickle through a small hole, or a candle to burn down. Yes, these things move - but they are not inherently oscillatory.

Digital clocks make it more difficult to get the connection between movement and the passage of time, but I'm sure something must be moving in order to tell the digital clock how long to wait before ticking off the next second.  Isn't the world's official time piece run by the vibration (movement back and forth) of something at the atomic level?

There is more than one 'official' time clock - there are at least four, and they are synchronised. Yes, they are based on something that oscillates - but it's not so easy to get at. You are looking at the relationship between the neucleus of a caesium atom, and its relationship with the electron clound surrounding it, and provoking it to oscillate at its natural resonance - which is about 9.192GHz. Once again, we have to count transitions - only this time, it's rather a lot. When we've counted 9,192,631,770 of them, one second will have passed - by definition.

Time seems to be defined by movement - hence the high schoolers quandry:  how fast does time move?  Put another way:  if nothing in the universe moved at all, even down to the atomic vibration level, would time exist?

I think it's the other way around. Movement is actually measured by the time it takes to get there - that's why we refer to miles per hour, rather than hours per mile.

And if nothing moved, there would be no universe - and no time.

We did the same thing with time - it wasn't based on an oscillation at all initially, but how long it took for sand or water to trickle through a small hole, or a candle to burn down.

Or possibly the oscillatory (or better, repetitive) heartbeat.  

Actually, informally we have two views of time - one based on repetition, and one based on entropy which is what your suggested indicators are showing.

Paul

We did the same thing with time - it wasn't based on an oscillation at all initially, but how long it took for sand or water to trickle through a small hole, or a candle to burn down.

Or possibly the oscillatory (or better, repetitive) heartbeat.  

The problem with heartbeats as a measuring stick is their propensity to vary in rate at about a 3:1 ratio at different times in humans! The current research indicates that our perception of time is based on a chemical release in two particular parts of the brain causing repeated synapse firing - see here. Dopamine is implicated...