Re: Einstein ever defined TIME?
From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/23/04
- Next message: jahn: "Re: Einstein's Doppler equation wrong?"
- Previous message: bv_schornak: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: Henri Wilson: "Re: Einstein ever defined TIME?"
- Next in thread: TomGee: "Re: Einstein ever defined TIME?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Oct 2004 10:37:13 -0700
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<725kn018ljhrql5tpkjc1k69c0dt45t98a@4ax.com>...
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:54:12 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> >> >> >> As far as I know, I am the only person who has ever provided a decent
> >> >> >> >> definition of time.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Time, like space, is a basic dimension by which we describe events in the
> >> >> >> >> universe.
> >> >> >> >> It has three subdimensions, the ratios of which allow concepts like 'timeflow'
> >> >> >> >> to have a noncircular meaning.
> >
SNIP
> >
> >And there is nothing in your definition which says
> >anything about if the same natural process can
> >be assumed to take the same amount of "time"
> >everywhere in the universe.
>
> You raise an interesting question actually.
> If time instant is universal, as I claim, then does this imply that time 'flow'
> is also constant everywhere?
>
>
Awhile back I posted in these ngs excerpts from an essay I wrote of my
convictions about time, and I maintained that in one sense only can we
think of time as universal, and in that sense universal time can have
no effect on anything, not even aging:
If we think that the rate of the passage of time (or, the rate of
aging) is universal, that is to say, if we think that time is, or is
part of, a medium or "continuum" in which all things are held equally
"captive" - and are thus held equally subject to its immutable flow -
then it becomes necessary indeed to invent such terms as time and
space "warps" when confronted with such natural inconsistencies of the
type shown in the experiment above.
We can say, if we wish to, and because we can't prove otherwise at the
moment, that if time rates accrue to objects in inverse proportion to
their states of motion, there must be uni-versal time rates that apply
to the varying levels of motion of similar discrete objects in space.
That is to say, at the speed of planet Earth in the universe (as it
revolves around the Sun, and as the Sun revolves around the galaxy,
and as our galaxy races through space), there is within the universe a
specific time rate which accrues for the particular state of motion of
the earth, and for any similar object which is in the same state of
motion, irrespective of their location within the universe. As the
Sun moves through space slower or faster than Earth, for example, its
time rate varies from Earth's time rate due to the Sun's particular
state of motion in space. And if another similar star in another
similar galaxy far away moves through the universe in a state of
motion similar to our sun, its time rate should be about the same as
the time rate of our star. Only in this sense may the property of
time be considered a universal imposition of the so-called "force" of
the "fabric" of time and space upon objects. TomGee 102304
>
> >So exactly how do you measure "time" in the real
> >physical world?
>
> You must specify time 'instant', 'interval' or 'rate of flow'.
>
> We refer to them all as just TIME but they are quite different.
>
> To do anything associated with time measurement, one requires a standard unit
> of time INTERVAL. This can then be divided into small divisions against which
> time 'INSTANT' can be determined to the accuracy of the division size.
> Then one can calibrate any number of clocks against that standard. We started
> out using the Earth's rotation as a standard but unfortunately, even this kind
> of thing will drift.
>
>
> >
> >Paul
> >
>
>
> HW.
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
- Next message: jahn: "Re: Einstein's Doppler equation wrong?"
- Previous message: bv_schornak: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: Henri Wilson: "Re: Einstein ever defined TIME?"
- Next in thread: TomGee: "Re: Einstein ever defined TIME?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
