Re: IS TIME REAL?
From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 10/23/04
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Are Unified Field Theories Justified?"
- Previous message: Pax: "Re: OOPS! Re: Part 2 Re: Ken, need help with this"
- In reply to: jahn: "Re: IS TIME REAL?"
- Next in thread: jahn: "Re: IS TIME REAL?"
- Reply: jahn: "Re: IS TIME REAL?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 09:46:58 GMT
"jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2tufvkF22phspU1@uni-berlin.de...
: If two photographs of the universe, both taken from the same
position
: show the displacement of any tiny feature, wouldn't you have to
: conclude that time is real?
: Kind regards,
: Sue...
:
Sue, I don't know why anyone would get into challenging an axiom.
I, for one, refuse to support what Nature clearly shows. I will not
defend an axiom.
Time is measurable, distance is measurable, mass is measurable.
In each case a calibrated instrument is used, but the units, be they
seconds, meters and kilograms or years, miles and ounces are
arbitrarily
chosen. In physics, the speed of light is the standard used today, but
we know that speed is relative. All calibration of length and time
carried out using the speed of light makes use of the speed of light
relative to the source. If we were to make use of the speed of light
relative to the detector alone for our calibration, then the source
would be free to wander relative to the source, doppler shift would be
apparent and the calibration would fail.
Having said that, I'll now ask you this. How do you define "same
position", when everything is in relative motion?
Androcles.
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Are Unified Field Theories Justified?"
- Previous message: Pax: "Re: OOPS! Re: Part 2 Re: Ken, need help with this"
- In reply to: jahn: "Re: IS TIME REAL?"
- Next in thread: jahn: "Re: IS TIME REAL?"
- Reply: jahn: "Re: IS TIME REAL?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
