In article ,
says...
I may be a total rookie to physics but on a former question
he 'What is Time' no one has an answer (and should not).

I beg to differ. I think you were given the correct answer - what a clock
reads. Beyond that your really into philosophy.


Is that a reflection on our ignorance eg genetics was once a subject of
philosophy before it became a science in modern times?




--
The people that believe that the world is flat are proof that heaps of
time, huge amounts of scientific evidence, plenty of eyewitness
accounts, numerous experts opinion and mountains of photographs are not
enough to convince some people! What is particularly frustrating is
that there are many such people on the Usenet.

Observations of Bernard - No 104

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...
|
| "Gert Baars" wrote in message
.. .
| I heard before the clock is THE answer to observing time.
|
| The clock is not the answer to observing time.
| It defines time.
|
| http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
| "The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the
| radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
| hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."
|
| Since you don't seem to like that, you better go to another
| newsgroup where they don't care about physics.
|
| Dirk Vdm

xi x', t' = t.

Since you don't seem to like that, you better go to another
newsgroup where they don't care about physics.

Androcles.

Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote:
First of all, you should be more specific with yourself, for instance, the
time the way it is counted as to profit to whom or a systematically, the
existence and the meaning of the time, whether, the one would not be without
the other.

Therefore, the time, it does still a being a fastidious translation along
the cycles of the nature, which it can make them to apprach a simple way and
a manners to control the events and the behaviours of the living spicies on
the shell of the earth.

Time is a measure of change.
When we refere to time, we generally mean the *Measure of Time*.

http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sa...me_measure.htm

GSS

Bill Hobba wrote:
"Gert Baars" wrote in message
.. .
I may be a total rookie to physics but on a former question
he 'What is Time' no one has an answer (and should not).

I beg to differ. I think you were given the correct answer - what a clock
reads. Beyond that your really into philosophy.


If time can not be understood then how can anything related
to time (like the whole lot) be 'understood' or discussed.

The above definition does nicely.
http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm

'Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is "time"? As
questions of physics these are going to be very different from similar
questions in philosophy. In physics, all one need say, to get started, is
that "mass resists acceleration" (intertial mass) or "mass exerts
gravitational attraction" (gravitational mass), that "distance is what we
measure with this rod," and that "time is what we measure with this clock."
Wow. These answers, of course, are not philosophically very satisfying. They
are all one needs, however, to start doing the science. And there is a
reason for that. Scientific explanations are logically only sufficient, not
necessary, to the phenomena. This means that they are enough to explain
something about what we are seeing, but that logically they are not the only
possible explanation and they do not explain everything about what we are
seeing. Indeed, explaining everything is a tall order, though it is what,
philosophically, we would like ultimately to have.'

Bill

Difficult to better comment.

Marecel Luttgens

Gert Baars wrote:
I may be a total rookie to physics but on a former question
he 'What is Time' no one has an answer (and should not).

If time can not be understood then how can anything related
to time (like the whole lot) be 'understood' or discussed.

Gert,

Your question is very much a valid question. It simply is not a valid
question in physics.
The answers pf physics can support the questions raised by our
experience, not the questions raised by our need for logical
understanding.

You see, the question of what something IS by itself is opposite to how
something is experienced. Since physics is acquiring knowledge by
experience, this type of question is somehow ignored. Physics could ask
the same question, but the answer would have to be modified so much in
order to make it physically testable that it would loose its meaning.
Lets face it; everything we know about the universe is in fact about
how we conceive and perceive it. What it is by itself is something
else....

But one can address this question by using empirically acquired
knowledge and by removing from it that part that we contributed to it
just by being observers. It is possible to remove this artefact of our
presence and come up with a simplified logical explanation.

My metaphysical questions a What is the universe made of and what
internal rules of constraint does it follow. This is a requirement for
understanding a spontaneous self evolving universe; it contains both
substance and cause.

IMHO, time is a continual explosive process we live in. The Big Bang
was not a punctual event but rather the beginning of a process, still
happening as shown by the acceleration of the universe expansion

BTW, time duration is our integration of a dynamical phenomenon, the
passage of time.
The first one is our synthetic clocking, the other is real . This is
the catch!
If you can physically interact with it, it is an experience, a binary
relationship of which you are an inseparable part. Then, it is not real
because it cannot exist without you to experience it! So is the
passage of time. You may infer its existence, but cannot experience it
directly ..... other than by integrating it as time duration.

Hope this help,

Marcel,

kirjoitti
glegroups.com...

Gert Baars wrote:
I may be a total rookie to physics but on a former question
he 'What is Time' no one has an answer (and should not).

If time can not be understood then how can anything related
to time (like the whole lot) be 'understood' or discussed.

Gert,

Your question is very much a valid question. It simply is not a valid
question in physics.
The answers pf physics can support the questions raised by our
experience, not the questions raised by our need for logical
understanding.

You see, the question of what something IS by itself is opposite to how
something is experienced. Since physics is acquiring knowledge by
experience, this type of question is somehow ignored. Physics could ask
the same question, but the answer would have to be modified so much in
order to make it physically testable that it would loose its meaning.
Lets face it; everything we know about the universe is in fact about
how we conceive and perceive it. What it is by itself is something
else....

But one can address this question by using empirically acquired
knowledge and by removing from it that part that we contributed to it
just by being observers. It is possible to remove this artefact of our
presence and come up with a simplified logical explanation.

My metaphysical questions a What is the universe made of and what
internal rules of constraint does it follow. This is a requirement for
understanding a spontaneous self evolving universe; it contains both
substance and cause.

IMHO, time is a continual explosive process we live in. The Big Bang
was not a punctual event but rather the beginning of a process, still
happening as shown by the acceleration of the universe expansion

BTW, time duration is our integration of a dynamical phenomenon, the
passage of time.
The first one is our synthetic clocking, the other is real . This is
the catch!
If you can physically interact with it, it is an experience, a binary
relationship of which you are an inseparable part. Then, it is not real
because it cannot exist without you to experience it! So is the
passage of time. You may infer its existence, but cannot experience it
directly ..... other than by integrating it as time duration.

Hope this help,

Marcel,

You are totally wrong. Contradictions between interpretation of experimental
results and common sense are due to incorrect theories. The final truth will
not be something that we cannot understand.

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen

Hi Henry,

- The word `contradiction`was nowhere used in my posting.

- We think of understanding as an ever fine description of things.
No description amounts to a logical explanation that stands on its
own.

- The final truth IS about a logical understanding of things.

Good luck,

Marcel,


You are totally wrong. Contradictions between interpretation of experimental
results and common sense are due to incorrect theories. The final truth will
not be something that we cannot understand.

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:
"Gert Baars" wrote in message
.. .
I may be a total rookie to physics but on a former question
he 'What is Time' no one has an answer (and should not).

I beg to differ. I think you were given the correct answer - what a
clock
reads. Beyond that your really into philosophy.


If time can not be understood then how can anything related
to time (like the whole lot) be 'understood' or discussed.

The above definition does nicely.
http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm

'Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is "time"?
As
questions of physics these are going to be very different from similar
questions in philosophy. In physics, all one need say, to get started, is
that "mass resists acceleration" (intertial mass) or "mass exerts
gravitational attraction" (gravitational mass), that "distance is what we
measure with this rod," and that "time is what we measure with this
clock."
Wow. These answers, of course, are not philosophically very satisfying.
They
are all one needs, however, to start doing the science. And there is a
reason for that. Scientific explanations are logically only sufficient,
not
necessary, to the phenomena. This means that they are enough to explain
something about what we are seeing, but that logically they are not the
only
possible explanation and they do not explain everything about what we are
seeing. Indeed, explaining everything is a tall order, though it is what,
philosophically, we would like ultimately to have.'

Bill

VERGON


The objective universe consists only of matter, space between matter,
and the motion of matter through that space, the rest is
anthropocentric
interpretation.

So Maxwell had it all wrong and fields do not exist - no if's or buts. I
strongly suspect you need to think a little bit before posting.

Rest snipped.

Bill

Henry,

I have been working for some time on a logical understanding of the
phenomenon of gravitation that makes use of our empirical knowledge,
physics.

In the end, I resorted to the two basic metaphysical questions about
the universe:
What is it made of and what rules does it follow.

My answer to these two questions a
1- A continual explosive process which we associate with the passage of
time
2- Simple rules of logic.

This approach eliminates the need for an experience or an oberver.
A dynamical substance as an explosive process can assume many
variations:
Its rate of evolution can vary in a multitude of ways: increasing,
decreasing, going from one to the other etc. A whole collection of
states can/could exist that include matter, waves etc.

All these states being made of one same substance , they could be
operational on one another via rules of logic .. by themself i.e in a
spontaneous way.

Lets look at one possible example. The assumption is that "space" is
the basic substance and explosive process (Big Bang process). Matter is
different
variations of the same substance..... Then, the presence of matter
replaces logically "space' because the same substance cannot be both
the
basic form AND the variation form. i.e variation and non-variation at
the same time!
The rule of non contradiction prevails.

This logical substitution causes an explosive deficit -of time- where
matter is. The relative slowing down of time by the presence of matter
is a given in physics. BUT, physics does not extract the logical cause
from its data since it is content with the empirical aspect.

Why do object fall ? Because existence is a time dependant property. In
the gradient of slower passage of time around a mass, anything that
exists will exist more on average in the direction where the passage of
time is relatively slower, i.e toward the earth, planet or whatever. A
planet and a moon will both tend to exist more toward each other.
Everything that exist replaces some exploding time and thereore slows
down time, and slower time makes existence (as position) more probable
in a specific direction = everything attracts everything else =
universal (logical) attraction.

....... In short: A multiple-state dynamical single substance universe
CAN evolve spontaneously by following simple -built-in-* rules of
logic. It appears that the universe has been evolving by itself for
the last 14 billion years, so this is the kind of approach we need in
order to
understand the universe as a spontaneous phenomenon.

* Some simple rule of logic cannot be transgressed in any known
field. This choiceless fact may point to an actual rule that the
universe follows.

Marcel,

Gert Baars wrote:
I may be a total rookie to physics but on a former question
he 'What is Time' no one has an answer (and should not).

In replies to your former post, time was related to you in
terms of accelerating a mass. (Just as Newton did )


If time can not be understood then how can anything related
to time (like the whole lot) be 'understood' or discussed.

Unless you are a pedestrian or an oil shiek, then you understand
the reality of time whenever you pay for motor fuel.

invariance with respect to time translation gives the
well known law of conservation of energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

Sue...