Re: The Flow of Time.




"Len Gaasenbeek" <gaasbeek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Ts-dnctK3JE506fZnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| To Henri,
|
| You are missing my point.
|
| Len.


Hahahaha
O
|
|
|
\ _ /

Perhaps the bait wasn't attractive or out of season. Try red wine instead
of blindworms.
Fisherman Androcles.


| ........................................................
| "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| news:677j329oeffe3qpml6mgg1iuol29s6sj64@xxxxxxxxxx
| > On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 16:01:31 -0400, "Len Gaasenbeek" <gaasbeek@xxxxxxxxxx>
| > wrote:
| >
| > >To Henri,
| > >
| > >"The concept of time of course is man's invention".
| > >Before mankind inhabited the earth there was no language, which means
| that
| > >the above quote could not be made.
| > >
| > >Similarly, until I coined the expression: 'Helical particle waves' the
| > >concept did not exist, that is to say, I invented it. Yet helical
| particle
| > >waves have existed in nature since the beginning of time, man simply
| wasn't
| > >aware of them.
| >
| > You discovered it.
| >
| > Did Mozart invent or discover his music?
| > Aftr all it is just a mathematical sequence of sound events.
| >
| > >The same can be said for most concepts in physics such as, the
| gravitational
| > >force, the electromagnetic spectrum etc. etc.
| > >
| > >Then there are many things with us now for which there was no name a few
| > >hundred years ago, such as television sets, cars and electronic
| computers,
| > >because man hadn't invented them yet. In other words, man created them,
| not
| > >nature.
| >
| > Did man create them or simply discover that they could be made to exist.
| >
| > Man didn't create the magnetic properties of iron...but he discovered all
| kinds
| > if ways to use it. An electromagnet is a discoverey not a creation.
| >
| > >However until the first man used the expression 'the flow of time', as
| far
| > >as mankind was concerned, the concept of time did not exist.
| >
| > It existed ...but man early man had no concept of it.
| >
| > >
| > >"The Hopi, an Indian tribe, have a language as sophisticated as ours, but
| no
| > >tenses for past, present and future. The division does not exist.
| > >What does this say about time?"
| > > Jeanette Winterson (1959- ) British author.
| > > Sexing the Cherry.
| >
| > Most animal language deals only with the present. Animals other than
| humans and
| > maybe a few dogs live entirely in the present. They have no concept of
| 'future'
| > and little memory of past events. This is purely an evolutionary matter.
| > Time and time flow still exist whether we understand them or not.
| >
| > >In summary, some concepts (such as time) were invented by man in the
| sense
| > >that one day he discovered a law of nature. Whereas other concepts were
| > >invented by man when he first created them, such as a television set.
| >
| > Again, I would class that as a discovery not a creation.
| > The big question is, "do we discover or create the future?"
| >
| > > The
| > >former always existed since they are part of mother nature; the latter
| did
| > >not, since man created them.
| >
| > Debatable.
| > For instance, solenoids in the form of circular currents exist naturally.
| >
| > >Of course some people argue that everything is part of mother nature
| since
| > >man is part of mother nature. In that sense all man's inventions are
| > >indirectly created by mother nature (the eternal creator), including this
| > >note.
| >
| > Every 'invention' is just a mathematical possibility of nature and can
| > therefore be classed as a discovery.
| >
| > Time existed long before man evolved the senses necessary to discover it.
| >
| > Light exists even if worms have no eyes.
| >
| > >
| > >Len.
| > >...............................................................
| > >
| > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| > >news:v15732h7qamotije8e5cja9lmnl21vmqv8@xxxxxxxxxx
| > >> On 4 Apr 2006 06:46:04 -0700, "kenseto" <kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| > >>
| > >> >Len:
| > >> >The concept of time of course is man's invention,
| > >>
| > >> absolute crap.
| > >> Time flew long before man evolved.
| > >>
| > >> Go look at a few rocks.
| > >>
| > >> >that is to say,
| > >> >everything
| > >> >in the universe ages at the same constant rate, second by second.
| > >> >Since by
| > >> >definition, a second constitutes the same length of time at all times,
| > >> >there
| > >> >is no such thing as a slow or fast second. To say otherwise is to
| > >> >maintain
| > >> >that a body can be both all black and all white at one and the same
| > >> >time,
| > >> >depending on how you look at it.
| > >> >Consequently, the concept of time dilation is illogical and
| ridiculous.
| > >> >
| > >> >To even discuss it is to declare oneself a fool, who is willing to
| > >> >sacrifice
| > >> >his/her sanity, to buy into the relativistic club.
| > >> >
| > >> >Ken:
| > >> >A clock second will have different duration (absolute time) in
| > >> >different frames (different state of absolute motion). That means that
| > >> >the passage of clock seconds is dependent on the state of absolute
| > >> >motion of the clock. That also means that clocks at different states
| of
| > >> >absolute motion will run at different rates. This is what SR called as
| > >> >time dilation. This explanation explains why the speed of light is
| > >> >measured to be a constant math ratio by all observers as follows:
| > >> >Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content
| > >> >(duration) for a clock second co-moving with the rod.
| > >> >
| > >> >Ken Seto
| > >>
| > >>
| > >> HW.
| > >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
| > >>
| > >>
| > >
| >
| >
| > HW.
| > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
| >
| >
|
|
.