In a message dated 12/12/2009 11:35:49 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
At 06:47 PM 12/11/2009, [email protected] wrote... >Unfortunately, that's not really the way it is. That's opinion, stated as fact. -------------- Is it? Can you show me any definition of "time" which demonstrates it to be an absolute quantity other than those which relate only to intervals? ---------------- >Time nuts do not and cannot measure time itself because time as an >absolute > entity just doesn't exist. That depends upon how one defines "time." Also, how one defines "reality," and where they sit on the philosophical/pragmatic scale. The OED's first definition is "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future, regarded as a whole," and that's exactly what time nuts measure. Time exists in the same way any other dimension does. It is measured by comparision (how many cycles of Cs resonance between two other events, etc.). Zeno's paradox tells us that distance and motion don't exist, either. But, there they are. No sense trying to respond, since it is impossible for your fingers to travel the distance required to make a response. --------------- I think you might be missing the point, the OED definition that you quote does not define time itself as an absolute measurable entity, and what time nuts measure are, yet again, the intervals between events. Dimensions, if you like, are properties rather than absolute entities but generally of something that has physical existence, so a rock, for an example, might be said to have mass, length, height, etc. It doesn't matter how you choose to define the properties, the rock con tinues to exist regardless. Similarly, less tangible items such as perhaps potential difference will exist anyway regardless of our definitions or the dimensions we apply to them. Frequency of course, as in how many cycles, is inversely proprtional to time intervals so back to square one:-) ----------------------------- >And just in case anyone wishes to shout me down on this, as happened >when I > dared to suggest the same some time ago, It's easy to be right, when you define terms to your own liking. Just what do you mean by "some time ago," given your claim that "time itself [isn't a] measurable quantity?" :-) -------------------- Who said I was defining it to my own liking?, I did say it wasn't always a very comfortable contemplation. "Some time ago" is easily defined in terms of time intervals, albeit perhaps not to the usual time nuts' standards of precision:-), but that's the whole point, we know that the intervals exist that separate sequential events, and we know we can measure them with significant acuracy, but where does that leave us in terms of "time" itself. Considering time as a dimension isn't quite so bad but the point I was attempting to make, perhaps not very well, was that many folks choose to, or want to, treat time itself as something that exists in a physical form, such as a river for example, and hence, again just by way of example, something that we might consider travelling backwards and forwards along if only we could find the right boat. And continuing that analogy, if it's the flow of water that creates a river, what is it that flows to create time:-) ? regards Nigel GM8PZR _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
