At 07:13 AM 12/12/2009, [email protected] wrote...
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.
Define "absolute measurable quantity," and give an example of something
(not countable, like fingers on a hand) which is.
What units do you "measure" in? Certainly not most SI units, which vary
by reference frame (time, length, mass, current, luminous intensity),
and/or are simple counts (mass effectively, mole) - which leaves
temperature. How do you measure temperature without using any of the
other SI units?
How does one "measure," if not by comparison? Is pi measurable? Can I
measure the circumference of a circle of diameter 1? How?
Or are you focused on "absolute?" If so, how is time any different than
distance? You measure between the points you want to measure. I can
measure the length of a bar of platinum-iridium, and call that 1 meter,
or I can measure the distance a photon travels in 1/299 792 458 of a
second. Is one somehow less real than the other?
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.
Einstein didn't claim time didn't exist - he linked it with space. Time
and distance are both relative to the frame of reference. Einstein had
no problem making frequent reference to the speed (distance/time) of
light. When he said "Time is an illusion," it was in reference to time
separated from space. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or isn't
physical.
This is nothing new. The GPS system was designed with the understanding
that the satellites exist in a different frame of reference than the
receivers. Yet, it works, because we measure time and mathematically
adjust for the different reference frames.
Seems to me you're just being pedantic. It's like claiming Newtonian
physics is wrong, even though it works perfectly well for 99.99% of
what it's used for.
_______________________________________________
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.
