Re: The Flow of Time.


"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:4rim325ikhq2nc1smi9dhn16kv0hku74tg@xxxxxxxxxx
| On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:24:50 -0400, "Len Gaasenbeek" <gaasbeek@xxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >To Henri,
| >
| >You are missing my point.
|
| I am seeing your point but disagreeing with it.
| Time exists without man's presence.

Yep. I told you ages ago Len was a nutter.

| Man evolved from lower lifeforms which had no concept of time. Most animals
| have no concept of it. We have a built in 'time detector' just as we have eyes
| to detect space. It's in our heads. It enables us to 'feel' time passing and
| estimate time intervals fairly accurately.


I have recollections of events from my childhood and although
I know time has passed since then I have no "feeling" for that, only a
calculation based on events since then. For example, I can recall my mother
breastfeeding my sister, so by calculation I know I was between
two and three years old. Based on the memory alone, it was as if it were
yesterday, yet since then my sister has lived out her life and died.
I can recall my first puppy and the fight with the kid next door, and
who doesn't remember their first ***? There have been many since then
and I know I can't remember them all or even put them in temporal order.
I lack your ability to "feel" time, but if you say you have it then I cannot
argue. I can only calculate. Subjectivity is... well... subjective.

Androcles.


|
|
|
| >
| >Len.
| >........................................................
| >"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
| >>
| >>
| >
|
|
| HW.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
|
.

Quantcast