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.

Dear Gert Baars:

"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).

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

If time cannot "understood or discussed", the relationships
between time and "anything related to time" can certainly be
understood and discussed.

You may not know what a unit of currency really means, but you
can still do interesting things with it.

David A. Smith

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.

Whether, the rest would be a just a technical as a mechanical matter all
along, a definitely as a matter a fact.

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"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).

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

"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

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.

Not true. I responded to your question - you apparently did
not read my post.

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.

In elucidation thereof:

Man perceives matter, to quantify it he conceptualizes "mass".
Matter exists objectively, mass is a concept.

Matter resists motion or alteration of motion. Man perceives that as
"inertia" which in turn quantifies mass.


Matter moves with varying degrees of motion. Man compares all motion to
one used as a standard which is constant. This standard motion is
divided into arbitrary units. The transit of the standard through one
unit is designated as time. (The rotation of the earth is a standard
motion. One rotation is designated as a day {time} with arbitrary
subdivisions.) All other motions are then compared to a unit of time.
Thus, at base, time is the comparison of motions, nothing more.

The quantification of motion in terms of time is conceptualized as
"velocity". Ultimately this is a comparison of motions against the
standard.

The quantification of the motion of matter in terms of mass and
velocity
is conceptualized as "momentum", i.e., there is a simultaneous
determination of the quantity of matter and the quantity of motion it
possesses.

Matter moves and changes that motion by interaction. Man perceives
the rate of change as "force", i.e., the change of momentum with
respect to time. Collaterally he perceives "acceleration" as the change
of velocity with respect to time.

Matter interacts with matter forming an altered configuration.
Man regards that as "energy", ultimately energy is matter (mass) in
motion.

There is space between matter. Man perceives that and quantifies it by
arbitrary standards of matter. Thus is created the concepts of
"dimension" and "distance".

-*-

So we see that dimension, space, time, mass, inertia, momentum,
acceleration, force, and energy are all subjective interpretations by
man of matter and its motion through space.

I heard before the clock is THE answer to observing time.
But what if your were blind. You could not read the clock
but would still be experiencing time?






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.

In elucidation thereof:

Man perceives matter, to quantify it he conceptualizes "mass".
Matter exists objectively, mass is a concept.

Matter resists motion or alteration of motion. Man perceives that as
"inertia" which in turn quantifies mass.


Matter moves with varying degrees of motion. Man compares all motion to
one used as a standard which is constant. This standard motion is
divided into arbitrary units. The transit of the standard through one
unit is designated as time. (The rotation of the earth is a standard
motion. One rotation is designated as a day {time} with arbitrary
subdivisions.) All other motions are then compared to a unit of time.
Thus, at base, time is the comparison of motions, nothing more.

The quantification of motion in terms of time is conceptualized as
"velocity". Ultimately this is a comparison of motions against the
standard.

The quantification of the motion of matter in terms of mass and
velocity
is conceptualized as "momentum", i.e., there is a simultaneous
determination of the quantity of matter and the quantity of motion it
possesses.

Matter moves and changes that motion by interaction. Man perceives
the rate of change as "force", i.e., the change of momentum with
respect to time. Collaterally he perceives "acceleration" as the change
of velocity with respect to time.

Matter interacts with matter forming an altered configuration.
Man regards that as "energy", ultimately energy is matter (mass) in
motion.

There is space between matter. Man perceives that and quantifies it by
arbitrary standards of matter. Thus is created the concepts of
"dimension" and "distance".

-*-

So we see that dimension, space, time, mass, inertia, momentum,
acceleration, force, and energy are all subjective interpretations by
man of matter and its motion through space.

Dear Gert Baars:

"Gert Baars" wrote in message
.. .
I heard before the clock is THE answer to
observing time. But what if your were blind.
You could not read the clock but would
still be experiencing time?

You could be red-green color blind and not read some clocks.

By the way, the blind can read clocks:
http://tomaxwell.com/brailleclock/brailleclock.htm

David A. Smith

Gert Baars wrote:
I heard before the clock is THE answer to observing time.
But what if your were blind. You could not read the clock
but would still be experiencing time?

"Time" is what a clock indicates, not what you see. Being blind does
not influence the clock.

"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