Re: Scientifically valid definitions.

From: shevek (shevek4_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/05/04 

Date: 4 Nov 2004 20:50:09 -0800

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:<Id-dncdxs5xG1RfcRVn-jg@conversent.net>...
> "shevek" <shevek4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c2ee115b.0411040631.1b85f976@posting.google.com...
> > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
> news:<lemdnXRuNJZeJBrcRVn-sA@conversent.net>...
> > > "shevek" <shevek4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:c2ee115b.0411020745.5e954a88@posting.google.com...
> > > > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > > news:<SfudnbTeav6zqRvcRVn-1A@conversent.net>...
> > >
> > >
> > > > OK, if you want one example, quickly touch a hot burner. Now try to
> > > > leave your hand there for longer. Feel the difference?
> > >[..]
> >
> > Anyway, I repeat: if you are arguing that "time itself cannot be
> > felt", than you must also argue that mass itself or distance itself
> > cannot be felt. Indeed, the only thing you can really feel is
> > neurotransmitter abundances, right?
>
> No, but I suspect that we'll not agree here because now we've got to define the word
> *feel*.

OK, although it might be important to the solution of our puzzle,
let's leave the question of the vertebrate nervous system for now.

>
> > > So you assert and so I question. If your whole argument boils down to
> > > reasserting that
> > > which we're debating, then there is no debate to be had. Besides, it
> > > amazes me that you
> > > can assert that unintelligent life *uses* time. Even if time is what
> > > you say it is, that
> > > life form is affected by time but certainly doesn't use it.
> > > Does it have little tiny watches?
> >
> > Yes. Every atom is a watch. Can you give me an example of
> > "unintelligent life" ? (please resist obvious flaming opportunity as
> > I have :) )
>
> And so we're back to discussing what a clock does. A clock produces events based upon
> motion. A clock is *used* to compare it's motion to that of other motions in order to
> order whatever events which might be of interest. As such, bacteria does not use time
> because it can perform no such comparison. It is certainly affected by motion, but it
> does not use time.

Well although it is off the topic slightly, I must point out that
there are bacteria that perform exactly that comparison. They sample
glucose concentrations, move a bit, and sample the concentration
again. If the second concentration is lower that what it had been,
they change direction.

But although I'd love to talk about what intelligence is, or how
phototropism is consciousness, maybe this is off topic too.

> >
> > Try to look at it the other way, which is equally consistent:
> > Time is not a tool, it simply is. DIstance is a tool which humans
> > use and is not a fundamental property of nature. Also, distance is
> > not the readings on roadside mile markers. Time is the reading on
> > roadside mile markers.
>
> I did try to look at it that way but it defies logic. Distance is the spatial > interval
> between two points in space.

What is this thing called "space" you speak of?

Do you mean that which takes a time to travel across?

> >
> > It was your assertion earlier I was relying on. Now you deny that
> > time is change?? OK, lets go with your fundamental property of
> > velocity. What is it? How can I sense it directly?
>
> I deny that time is change because I never asserted it. However, as a result of some
> discussions I've had here with the more reasonable folks like yourself, I've adjusted my
> position. Sorry if that will cause you confusion. I've now come to the hypothesis that
> motion and distance, and not speed, are fundamental. However, that changes nothing in my
> belief that time is just a calculation. So if your question is how do you sense motion
> directly, then just look around. It there's any part of your body that changes position
> relative to any other part, then you just saw motion.
>

You're too kind. OK, so we can somehow sense that positions of things
change. But that's pretty advanced.. already we have position and
change..
  
> >
> > Well I'm likely wasing "time" here, as I already said this, but again:
> > calculated values are all things we think about. Velocity, mass,
> > time, etc. etc. are calculated values.
>
> Then we'll have to simply disagree because I believe that mass and distance are not
> calculated but are fundamental as is motion, and that velocity (a revision to my earlier
> claim) and time are calculated values.

You thought about it, therefore you calculated it. But of course
there are fundamentals: objects exist, and they can move. On this we
agree.

THanks -

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Scientifically valid definitions.
    ... >> stove can do to ... A clock is *used* to compare it's motion to that of other motions in order to ... Mass and Distance are not tools. ... belief that time is just a calculation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Revised Hypothesis
    ... Different motions imply different velocities, and velocity = distance / motion. ... > relies on a relativity to decipher it for us. ... > relation of all that you wish to provide as fundamentals. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: My New Website
    ... I merely used the distance between adjacent atoms. ... And I explained my calculation in great detail, ... I.e. you simply choose the angles with which the arms ... If two tetrahedrons touch at one corner, i.e. one arm of each is connected ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Pioneer 10 test of light speed delay
    ... >> conventional theory, ... Doppler is exactly zero when the motion of the site ... In addition I confirmed the final calculation ... > with the assumed transmission earthsite motion a minute before the the ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: What c.l.pys opinions about Soft Exception?
    ... Which might be a useful place to use SoftExceptions ... def calculateforce: ... The problem happens when the distance is small enough and we want to ... obfuscate the code since we have to separate distance calculation from ...
    (comp.lang.python)