Re: A definition of time.

From: AllYou! (idaman_at_conversent.net)
Date: 10/26/04 

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:27:03 -0400

"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:417e7997$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
> "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
> news:h9idnYM9H-Jo9-PcRVn-1w@conversent.net...
> > Time is calculated and not measured. As such, claims that the so-called
> > continuum is a space-time one and that time dilates are simply wrong.
> SNIP

> Although indeed time is related to motion (or progress of motional
> processes), why do you claim that time is more calculated than for example
> distance is? We can count the number of cm between two objects and call
> 1/100 of it the length; similarly we can count the number of seconds
between
> two events and call it the time. I would say that the measurement
mechanism
> is more complex and indeed derived from motion, but the measurement itself
> is just as straightforward.

More to consider:

Motion has three possible properties: Distance, Velocity, Time. Because
there is a very definite relationship among the three, two must be
fundamental and the other establishes the relationship. Also, just like any
other phenomena, motion is quantifiable.

So, the question arises..........which two of the three are fundamental?
There seems to be general agreement that distance is one of the two, so that
leaves us with a choice between time and velocity. So let's explore a
series of questions:

Which is most easily observed?
Which can I most readily feel?
Which can I most readily see?
Which of the five senses does time stimulate?
If man did not exist, would velocity?
If man did not exist, would time?
Can I create a velocity?
Can I create a time and know that I'm not using a velocity to do so?

While not all of these questions are simply answered, the preponderance of
evidence suggests that velocity is clearly the fundamental property. What's
more, there is nothing in those answers, or in anything else, to demonstrate
that it is not.

But the most telling questions are the last two. I can easily create a
velocity and establish it as a standard by which I'll compare other
velocities in order to quantify them. However, there is no way for me to
create some interval of time which does not use (or which I know for certain
does not use) velocity to do so. There is no evidence to support the notion
that a duration of time can be established without using motion in the first
place. However, there is all the evidence we need to support the notion
that we can create a velocity on it's own, and that a velocity thus created,
together with distance, *is* motion.

Therefore, clearly distance and velocity are fundamental to any motion and
time is simply the calculated value of that motion.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Define a clock
    ... It says that motion is observable and that we've ordered certain ... the observability of time depends upon ... > I suppose we could pick a location on Earth and take its _velocity ... We can carry a unit of distance and a unit of mass, but doing so for time is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Define a clock
    ... complicated to think of it as just more motion and so he chose a constant ... motion, the Earth's rotation, and called it a clock. ... With distance, we can use a distance as a standard to measure it. ... >> The same with volume, velocity, charge, temperature, mass, and others. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Define a clock
    ... You'd certainly not be observing ... It's moving at some velocity thorough some distance ... enough motion will occur to trigger the change from one ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • A definition of time.
    ... it produces a motion for one thing. ... position and the interval between those two positions is a distance. ... we observe distances all the time and we tend to quantify them. ... IOW, we observed a velocity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The distance measured from A to B is not equal to the distance measured from B to A
    ... and call BA the distance measured from point B to ... to B. That photon always travels locally at c, ... then it has a velocity of -c relative to S and S'. ... Lorentz equations show this automatically because wherever the speed ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)