No?
How can we measure time? No one has actually shown an example... in fact, someone has already pointed out, that time is what a clock measures.
The double solution theory, a new interpretation of Wave Mechanics
- Thread starter cav755
- Start date
No?
How can we measure time? No one has actually shown an example... in fact, someone has already pointed out, that time is what a clock measures.
But that clock... it's just a set of changes isn't it, built into it as a machine. It isn't actually observing time at all, it's following a very strict set of Newtonian principles.
Alex,
A clock machine is a register of abstraction from info about ITSELF in motional periodicity/rate/count.
A microscope machine registers info about OTHER things (like photon reflection/scatter from an atom under study).
The clock info IS the INFO which we use in our 'time' abstraction construct.
Whereas the microscope info represents the real ATOM info, not the machine itself as in the clock case.
Therein lay the difference in reality.
A clock machine is a register of abstraction from info about ITSELF in motional periodicity/rate/count.
A microscope machine registers info about OTHER things (like photon reflection/scatter from an atom under study).
The clock info IS the INFO which we use in our 'time' abstraction construct.
Whereas the microscope info represents the real ATOM info, not the machine itself as in the clock case.
Therein lay the difference in reality.
Last edited:
I didn't.....But I still see time as measurable, although more suitbaly measured in the context of space/time.
Are you Reiku as suggested?
If that is the case we then have yourself, cav755 and undefined all hiding under alternative handles after bannings here and elsewhere.
All three anti mainstreamers, under guises.
The mind boggles!
cue: Another tirade of personal cesspool posts from "ÿou know who"
Time is measured by clocks. You may insist otherwise, but you're wrong. And I can see we're drifting strongly into crank land.
Actually, if you want me to describe the relatively simple mechanics of a clock to you, I will. But what it does is certainly nothing about ''measurement'' as we understand it; it's a changing system, programmed to do so. Then there is something subjective about the way we project the change of the hands of the clock.
Alex, so if you stop the clock, you stop 'time' because it is not being 'measured'? A bit 'crankland' of you, isn't it?
And if you stop the clock, it is the clock stopping which 'stops measuring time', not the other way round. That is, 'time' didn't 'stop' so the clock stopped because there was 'no time to measure'. See where all your 'arguments' lead, Alex?
Better listen to Maxila, then all your confusions will end, just in the nick of time!
And if you stop the clock, it is the clock stopping which 'stops measuring time', not the other way round. That is, 'time' didn't 'stop' so the clock stopped because there was 'no time to measure'. See where all your 'arguments' lead, Alex?
Better listen to Maxila, then all your confusions will end, just in the nick of time!
Yes, it's all motion. It's definitely measuring change, now that is physical! If someone said to me, a clock is measuring entropy, I'd still prefer that over the use of the word ''time.''
You just answered your own question.
Occams razor....
space is what separates matter/energy
Time is what separates events
Space/time is the construct against which the Universe exists, and without it, there would be nothing, zilch, zero, nada.....
>>>>>>
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.
>>>>>>>
One can make a lot of conclusions from that statement about reality.
No, changes are what separates events. Like a second ago, all the particles in my body had shifted and all the cosmological objects in the universe relative to me also changed. Isn't it interesting, if there was no change in your system, there would be no easy way to define time at all?
I think that hits it on the nail right there.
Great, let's argue about definitions.
Changes are events yes, note change
An event is a snapshot, just as there are no changes in a single frame, or snap shot.
However, you can clearly see there are no ways to change separation in ''time'' if there was no physical evidence of change. There is no disputing there is change associated to the system, there is no reason to introduce an entire new dimension for it. Change in three dimensions is sufficient.
Not at all. It is you the observer connecting the two events in a 'time' abstraction/construct to make sense of the two 'simultaneous events' that occurred. Like you looking at the watch hand get to the 7 Oclock position while the train pulled in at the station. Both those events took place whether you observed them or not in order to say 'what time' did they happen 'simultaneously'?
The universal process continues whether it 'knows the time' here or there or not. It is the processing IN/ACROSS SPACE that 'separates' LOCALIZED SUB-PROCESS events in that overall UNIVERSAL processes. Not 'time'. Since the universe 'can't tell time'. It just is and happens where it happens, whether or not one is there to observe simultaneous events across SPACE....as in the watch hand point to 7 Oclock and the train pull into station....across SPACE not 'time'.
Einstein explained it exactly in those terms. So I suggest you re-think your own 'version' of the reality-value of that facile "time prevents everything from happening all at once" abstract fairy tale non-explanation, Alex.
That's what you're doing.
Then everything happens at once. Change occurs in 4 dimensions.
What makes you think this? Stupid question, it's clear what makes you think this. You think time is something which separates all things... well I know one thing for sure. There is definitely some space between things, whether there really is time will depend heavily on your interpretation of the facts. I've presented some of those here... basically saying you are all misapplying the correct way we define the word ''observation'' or ''measurement'' in physics. You say I am arguing about definitions, truth is, I am arguing facts.
Across universal SPACE extent. The 'space extent' separates the events, not some 'universal time' extent.
What thread have you been reading... or not been reading might be better a term?
I specifically told everyone in the thread, they are misapplying what we mean by ''measurement'' in physics. I think that's a very important thing you have ... probably intentionally overlooked. I told you, Hermitian matrices describe observables. Time is not represented by a Hermitian matrix, meaning it is not even an observable! This is a very important fact I have brought to the table... a lot better than the posts coming from yourself and others which are just intended to ''argue.''