AllYou!:
Definition A:
Time is what a clock measures.
A clock is what measures time.

Definition B:
Splat rays from the Sun are what a clock measure.
A clock is what measures splat rays.

Definition C:
A bell is what records an angel getting it's wings.
And angel getting it's wings rings a bell.

Definition D:

Spatial distances are what rulers measure.
A ruler what measures spactial distances.


Which definitions are scientifically valid?

None, unless you have some standard unit of measurement which
and be used to calibrate the measuring device.

What do they all have in common?

Poor analogy.

Which would still be true if man did not exist?
Is time more than just a man-made concept?
Are splats more than just a man-made concept?
Are angels more than just a man-made concept?




-----
"Probably the earliest fly swatters were nothing more than some sort of
striking surface attached to the end of a long stick."

AllYou!:

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"AllYou!" wrote in message
...
Definition A:
Time is what a clock measures.

yes.

A clock is what measures time.

Silly.

To wit:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"AllYou!" wrote in message
...

b How do we measure time?

By looking at our clock.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is it really that hard to use some common sense? Sheeesh.

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Bill, considering that he clearly has taken a habit of calling the both
of us "bitter old fools"
( http://groups.google.com/groups?q=au...you+bitter+old ),
how young do you estimate this particular mental case?

Hard one Dirk. I am 49 and am just starting an early retirement due to
health issues (in Australia retirement age is 55 for Government employees,
although you can continue until 65 if you want) - so if you count me as
young I do not know.

Hehe, I am one year younger than you are, but I don't think they'll
offer me an early retirement. Our population is "greying" rapidly and
too many 50 years olds got an E.R. during the last 15 years, so I'm
afraid the rest of us will have to keep on working in order to feed
the lucky *******s :-(
But I like my job, so I'm not *really* complaining :-)

Mental incompetence can occur at any age - as the
innumerable discussions in my youth with religious fundamentalists show.
But young people are not normally as set in their ways as this poster
obviously is - I suspect he has formed his view over many years and the
reason he fights tooth and nail is he does not want to change long held
beliefs. He definitely demonstrates actions consistent with dementia (my
poor mother has just been diagnosed with it - due to damage to the frontal
part of the brain aggressive behavior will often surface). Thus at a guess
60+.

Bizarre... based on what went on between us, my guess of his age
ends up somewhere between 20 and 25. I don't have any hard
evidence for that, just a feeling. A hard one indeed.
But I agree, in the eyes of some 20 years olds, we might look "old"
indeed :-)

Of course he will now probably accuse me of saying he is demented which of
course is not what I said - but it would be consistent with his actions on
this newsgroup.

Thanks
Bill

Thanks for sharing.
Enjoy the next chapter in your life, and take care - and of your mother.

Dirk

"AllYou!" wrote in message ...
"Eugene Shubert" http://www.everythingimportant.org wrote in message
...
"AllYou!" wrote in message
...
Time is what a clock measures.
A clock is what measures time.

Time is the thing that clocks measure. What do you want to make
out of that?

That time is just a concept invented by man and when we speak of time
dilation and a space-time continuum, they are only valid terms within that
context.

Other than that, it doesn't say much and so there's nothing much to make out
of it. Care to answer the rest of the questions? Why do those who insist
that they understand these matters always find it necessary to snip the
relevant parts of the post to which they reply?


Definition A:
Time is what a clock measures.
A clock is what we look at to measure time.

Anyone who holds the position that a variable of physics is
unaccountable to the instruments that measure the variable is
unempirical.

Patrick

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"AllYou!" wrote in message
...

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"AllYou!" wrote in message
...
Definition A:
Time is what a clock measures.

Yes.

A clock is what measures time.

No, everyone knows what a clock is.

Really? So time is what a clock measures, but a clock is not what
measures
time? I can tell you that all we know about a clock is that it uses
motion
to produce events.

As has constantly been asked of you, and you have failed to detail,
exactly
what motion produces what events in an atomic clock? The best you have
been

Its not his responsibility to show what motion produces what events in the
atomic clock. If you think an atomic clock is an example of a type of clock
that makes his statement incorrect, then you would need to explain how the
atomic clock works that is not just another example of what he said.

Sorry if you have done this and he ignored it or something. I havent paid
much attention to his ramblings lately.


able to come up with is 'So no theories can be proffered unless all
possibilities to the contrary are disproven'. Indeed since atomic clocks
work using QM principles the concept of a definite motion is not really
applicable - but an understanding of QM does not seem to be in your skill
set. And look at the wording of the above 'I can tell you that all we
know
about a clock is that it uses motion to produce events.' - you are not
putting forward a theory for consideration - you are telling us how a
clock
works. As Dirk says - 'Sucking Logic, Sucking Algebra, Sucking Attitude,
Sucking Thumbs, the deadly combination of IGNORANCE and ARROGANCE.'

Bill

Any greater significance than this that we might ascribe
to a clock is nothing but unfounded speculation. Very poor science
indeed.
--
"Probably the earliest fly swatters were nothing more than some sort of
striking surface attached to the end of a long stick."




---
Thomas

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind."
--Le Marquis de Sade

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote
in message ...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Bill, considering that he clearly has taken a habit of calling the
both
of us "bitter old fools"
( http://groups.google.com/groups?q=au...you+bitter+old ),
how young do you estimate this particular mental case?

Hard one Dirk. I am 49 and am just starting an early retirement due to
health issues (in Australia retirement age is 55 for Government
employees,
although you can continue until 65 if you want) - so if you count me as
young I do not know.

Hehe, I am one year younger than you are,

Strictly speaking that makes us the same age - I turn 49 in 3 weeks.

but I don't think they'll
offer me an early retirement.

It was not an offer - I was simply in a lucky position (I had enough money
saved) to be able to retire early.

Our population is "greying" rapidly and
too many 50 years olds got an E.R. during the last 15 years, so I'm
afraid the rest of us will have to keep on working in order to feed
the lucky *******s :-(

That is correct. In Australia regiment age has, on a sliding scale, been
raised from 55 to 60 for people borne after 1960. I believe they will raise
it again because society simply can not afford to keep a graying population.
However the changes in work culture such as working longer hours and less
job security that occurred throughout the eighties and nineties in the name
of efficiency (that was when early retirement packages were being handed
out) have left their mark - people are now 'burnt out' earlier - so if
people are to remain at work longer another shift in the attitude of
employers will need to occur. Employers are already complaining - we went
through this change in culture, from loyalty to your employer and in return
you had a permanent job, to one of numerous career changes throughout
working life. Guess what employers now complain about generation x? - they
have no loyalty - as soon as they are trained they move on. You can not
have it both ways I am afraid. Many people now have early exist strategies
from work to a better lifestyle (they call it sea change here in Australia -
I guess I am one of those because I have now moved to by the sea) so it does
not matter how much they raise retirement age, if work is stressful, people
will quit work as early as they can.

But I like my job, so I'm not *really* complaining :-)

I like my job too - if it was not for this damn arthritis I would still be
at work. But I am not complaining either - it gives me the opportunity to
purse other interests. I find that is one of the secrets with life - take
it as it comes and look on change as an opportunity.


Mental incompetence can occur at any age - as the
innumerable discussions in my youth with religious fundamentalists show.
But young people are not normally as set in their ways as this poster
obviously is - I suspect he has formed his view over many years and the
reason he fights tooth and nail is he does not want to change long held
beliefs. He definitely demonstrates actions consistent with dementia
(my
poor mother has just been diagnosed with it - due to damage to the
frontal
part of the brain aggressive behavior will often surface). Thus at a
guess
60+.

Bizarre... based on what went on between us, my guess of his age
ends up somewhere between 20 and 25. I don't have any hard
evidence for that, just a feeling.

You could easily be correct - indeed older people usually do not refer to
others as bitter old fools. But his aggressive attitude and unwillingness
to change his view in the face of overwhelming evidence is rather
interesting - it is not something I have often seen in the young. But I was
really only guessing.

A hard one indeed.
But I agree, in the eyes of some 20 years olds, we might look "old"
indeed :-)

Yes indded.


Of course he will now probably accuse me of saying he is demented which
of
course is not what I said - but it would be consistent with his actions
on
this newsgroup.

Thanks
Bill

Thanks for sharing.
Enjoy the next chapter in your life, and take care - and of your mother.

Of course. Your concern, as always, is appreciated.

Thanks
Bill


Dirk

"Thomas Jones" wrote in message
...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"AllYou!" wrote in message
...

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"AllYou!" wrote in message
...
Definition A:
Time is what a clock measures.

Yes.

A clock is what measures time.

No, everyone knows what a clock is.

Really? So time is what a clock measures, but a clock is not what
measures
time? I can tell you that all we know about a clock is that it uses
motion
to produce events.

As has constantly been asked of you, and you have failed to detail,
exactly
what motion produces what events in an atomic clock? The best you have
been

Its not his responsibility to show what motion produces what events in the
atomic clock. If you think an atomic clock is an example of a type of
clock
that makes his statement incorrect, then you would need to explain how the
atomic clock works that is not just another example of what he said.

That has already been done; to which he replied 'So no theories can be
proffered unless all possibilities to the contrary are disproven' and
continued posting as if it had not been shown to be false. This is part of
the attitude problem I believe this poster has.

See, for example


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2...ews.com&rnum=3.


Sorry if you have done this and he ignored it or something. I havent paid
much attention to his ramblings lately.


No problem - It is a valid point.

Thanks
Bill



able to come up with is 'So no theories can be proffered unless all
possibilities to the contrary are disproven'. Indeed since atomic
clocks
work using QM principles the concept of a definite motion is not really
applicable - but an understanding of QM does not seem to be in your
skill
set. And look at the wording of the above 'I can tell you that all we
know
about a clock is that it uses motion to produce events.' - you are not
putting forward a theory for consideration - you are telling us how a
clock
works. As Dirk says - 'Sucking Logic, Sucking Algebra, Sucking
Attitude,
Sucking Thumbs, the deadly combination of IGNORANCE and ARROGANCE.'

Bill

Any greater significance than this that we might ascribe
to a clock is nothing but unfounded speculation. Very poor science
indeed.
--
"Probably the earliest fly swatters were nothing more than some sort
of
striking surface attached to the end of a long stick."




---
Thomas

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind."
--Le Marquis de Sade

"AllYou!" wrote in message ...

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"AllYou!" wrote in message
...
Definition A:
Time is what a clock measures.

Yes.

A clock is what measures time.

No, everyone knows what a clock is.

Really? So time is what a clock measures, but a clock is not what measures
time? I can tell you that all we know about a clock is that it uses motion
to produce events. Any greater significance than this that we might ascribe
to a clock is nothing but unfounded speculation. Very poor science indeed.

My rather short reply was intended to convey a serious
point. By necessity physics needs to start from a
common, shared, and agreed-upon experience.

Questions such as: 'What is space? What is time? What
is distance?' cannot be answered without some kind
of circular argument. Philosophers may argue about
this kind of thing for ever but for physics to happen we
need to start from some agreed basic concepts.

For centuries, two of the natural starting concepts
would have been space and time. Everyone knew
what they were.

At the start of the twentieth century, however,
experimental evidence came to light that showed that
our naive concept of time was not in agreement with
experiment. Starting from the position. 'everybody
knows what time is' leads to irresolvable paradoxes.

Einstein's solution was to say that time is what a clock
measures. With that definition we again have a consistent
model of reality that agrees with experiment. As to the
question of what a clock is, that has to be left as one of
the agreed starting points namely that everyone knows
what a clock is.

Martin Hogbin

Martin Hogbin wrote:

Einstein's solution was to say that time is what a clock
measures. With that definition we again have a consistent
model of reality that agrees with experiment. As to the
question of what a clock is, that has to be left as one of
the agreed starting points namely that everyone knows
what a clock is.

This is an example of Conventialism. Poincare pointed out that much of
science is convention, rather than raw unprocessed fact. This is not
harmful as long as the conventions do not contradict facts and are
adhered to consistently. It is somewhat like choosing units. You can
choose any convenient unit but once you do you have to stick with it
throughout a unit of discourse.

Bob Kolker

"robert j. kolker" wrote in message ...


Martin Hogbin wrote:

Einstein's solution was to say that time is what a clock
measures. With that definition we again have a consistent
model of reality that agrees with experiment. As to the
question of what a clock is, that has to be left as one of
the agreed starting points namely that everyone knows
what a clock is.

This is an example of Conventialism.

I do not much like the use of 'isms' in physics discussions
as it seems to create more argument than simply describing
what you mean. Also, in science, is there any significant body
of opinion that does not hold this view?

Poincare pointed out that much of
science is convention, rather than raw unprocessed fact.

Yes, this is one of the sticking points for many of the
crackpots on this group. They do not realise how
much of science is arbitrary, thus when Einstein quite
properly described his constant light speed concept
as a postulate they see this as a weakness.

This is not
harmful as long as the conventions do not contradict facts and are
adhered to consistently. It is somewhat like choosing units.

Agreed, but try explaining that to the crackpots.

Martin Hogbin