# Thread: The Perspective of Time

1. I do not know if this is something that has already been discussed here or elsewhere, but I had an epiphany that seems to make seems to make senses. What if we are looking at time from the wrong perspective? Meaning we are fixating in looking at time as a singular point when really we should be looking at time in the form of bands. It could be a macro/micro kind of thing. Time is our fourth-dimension, but time itself is two-dimensional. If you pick a single point and then look at that band of time you would see all of the events occurring at the same time as the viewed event. I just thought about this and figured I would post it somewhere and see what others say. Anything would appreciated. If there are others who have written about this I would love to see sources.

Just food for thought.

2.

3. Originally Posted by Indie_Gray
but time itself is two-dimensional.
No.

If you pick a single point and then look at that band of time you would see all of the events occurring at the same time as the viewed event.
Only if you were also at every spatial location at that time.

4. Sorry it’s not very lengthy in description. There was a lot more I wanted to put, but it was late and I was tired. Being at every spatial location would be possible if you were able to manipulate time and space. What I mean by two dimensional is that if you look at time as a field surrounding the earth (for visualization sake) and picked a point you would be looking at that specific point, but there would be the rest of the field. If it looked at it as a band that was seemingly infinite in length you would have every event that occurred along that band. Not necessarily like a scroll-bar, but much like it in essence.

5. Originally Posted by Indie_Gray
If you pick a single point and then look at that band of time you would see all of the events occurring at the same time as the viewed event.
According to Einstein, time is not synchronous. There is no such thing as "an instant of time" that would be the same for all reference points.

Your "band of time" would have to be a smear...

6. Time has only one metaphorical dimension. I say metaphorical because time is not a thing. It has no more existence than does "length" or "weight." It does not exist outside of mankind's use of this concept he created for keeping track of things. If you disagree about the non-existence of time, please send me a small box of minutes and I will send you a large compensation.

7.

8. Originally Posted by Smite
If you disagree about the non-existence of time, please send me a small box of minutes and I will send you a large compensation.
As compensation I'd like a box of thought please.
You appear to be using "exist" in the sense of "materially present".

9. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
You appear to be using "exist" in the sense of "materially present".
More in the sense of objective reality. Unfortunately, the English language has a plethora of words with multiple or similar meanings (as evinced by NoCoPilot's post).

10. Originally Posted by Smite
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
You appear to be using "exist" in the sense of "materially present".
More in the sense of objective reality. Unfortunately, the English language has a plethora of words with multiple or similar meanings.
We have processes that repeat in a statistically regular manner. Is "regularity" objective in the same way that you say time is?

11. I used objective reality to define my use of the word existence in referring to time, which I said does not exist [in any objective manner].

12. Originally Posted by Smite
I used objective reality to define my use of the word existence in referring to time, which I said does not exist [in any objective manner].
So, objectively, you die as soon as you're born?

13. You mean like this thread died when it became about semantics rather than time?

14. You're using that as an excuse?
Given that semantics is concerned with meaning...
I'll ask again: are you claiming that we die at the same "time" as we're born? Is that objective reality?

15. No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that time is not an objectively real thing. The time that you are born is read from a clock. As is the time that you die. Man-made clocks. There is no universally-controlling or -monitoring entity that is time itself. It's something we made up.

16. Originally Posted by Smite
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that time is not an objectively real thing. The time that you are born is read from a clock. As is the time that you die. Man-made clocks. There is no universally-controlling or -monitoring entity that is time itself. It's something we made up.
Crap.
The simple fact that there is a "gap" between being born and dying is evidence that time exists.
Oh, and time - like distance - is a dimension not a "universally-controlling or -monitoring entity".

17. If you read the OP's first post in this thread, you can see the point I was making in my first post here.
You are not addressing the OP's statement nor mine.
That's enough, I think.

18. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Smite
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that time is not an objectively real thing. The time that you are born is read from a clock. As is the time that you die. Man-made clocks. There is no universally-controlling or -monitoring entity that is time itself. It's something we made up.
Crap.
The simple fact that there is a "gap" between being born and dying is evidence that time exists.
Oh, and time - like distance - is a dimension not a "universally-controlling or -monitoring entity".
Are you not appealing to a subjective view of time to say that?How is the external observer's measurement of the gap between an organism being born and dying any different from the observer's measurement of the gap between any two events?

What is otherwise special about that gap that illustrates how time does in fact exist?

But if we accept (as I do) that time does exist,are you saying it exists as a measure of the way events relate to one another?

@smite I misunderstood your position:I thought you were saying time had an objective reality.

It seems that time does have a reality but that it is hard to pin down exactly what that reality is....you say "entirely man made" and Dywy
seems to be arguing for the complete opposite :"independent of man's artifices." if I have followed right.

19. You are exactly right in that "time" is the observer's measurement of the gap between any two events. Without man's creation of the definition and usage of the concept of time, it would not exist, even subjectively.
The OP stated "Time is our fourth-dimension, but time itself is two-dimensional." That makes no sense to me. Time has no "dimension" other than what you have defined as the difference between when two acts occur. You are using an alternative definition of the word dimension than the OP. Of course, that demeans time to nothing more than a simple man-made measurement. Which, in my opinion, is all that it is.

The OP wrote "if you look at time as a field surrounding the earth". This statement relegates time to the state of an objective reality, completely separated from the concept of time being merely a tool for the use of man. And I disagree with that. There are no "bands" of time, or "fields" of time.

As I said before, time is nothing more than a measuring concept. It does not exist outside of mankind's usage of it as a tool.

(I hope this is readable; I broke my glasses about ten minutes ago.)

20. Originally Posted by Smite
I not only read I replied to it.

you can see the point I was making in my first post here.
You are not addressing the OP's statement nor mine.

You are exactly right in that "time" is the observer's measurement of the gap between any two events. Without man's creation of the definition and usage of the concept of time, it would not exist, even subjectively.
Really? Still nothing but empty claims?

As I said before, time is nothing more than a measuring concept.
So what is being measured?

It does not exist outside of mankind's usage of it as a tool.
Now you appear to be confusing a system of measurement (man-made and arbitrary) with what is being measured. A foot, a mile and a nanometre are man-made but the separation (distance itself) isn't.

21. Here is a simple description of my position: Time is not a property of the universe. It is not mass nor energy nor gravity. Now I may be wrong, but of course I don't believe that I am. If I was presented with some evidence of my being wrong, I would certainly consider it. But as for now, I will stick with what I think to be true.

22. Originally Posted by Smite
Here is a simple description of my position: Time is not a property of the universe. It is not mass nor energy nor gravity. Now I may be wrong, but of course I don't believe that I am. If I was presented with some evidence of my being wrong, I would certainly consider it. But as for now, I will stick with what I think to be true.
So, essentially, you're saying that you believe it to be so but have no evidence that it is so.
I'll ask again: what is being measured? (With regard to, for example, the interval between being born and dying).

23. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
So, essentially, you're saying that you believe it to be so but have no evidence that it is so.
I am saying that I am unaware of any evidence to indicate that my position is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
I'll ask again: what is being measured? (With regard to, for example, the interval between being born and dying).
What is being measured in this case is the number of days between being born and dying. And one day is a physical thing - the rotation of the earth.

24. Originally Posted by Smite
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that time is not an objectively real thing. The time that you are born is read from a clock. As is the time that you die. Man-made clocks. There is no universally-controlling or -monitoring entity that is time itself. It's something we made up.
Actually, every quantity has to be defined, either directly or indirectly via other quantities, in terms of how it is measured. Thus, time defined as the quantity that clocks measure is every bit as "objectively real" as any other quantity. In what way is energy (for example) more "objectively real" than time?

25. Originally Posted by Smite
I am saying that I am unaware of any evidence to indicate that my position is incorrect.
Then you're either uneducated or wilfully ignorant.

What is being measured in this case is the number of days between being born and dying. And one day is a physical thing - the rotation of the earth.
Forget the UNIT of measure (you're going back to the confusion mentioned earlier): the fact that there is an interval between being born and dying is a pretty indicator that time exists.
Distance is a measure of the interval between objects, time is a measure of the interval between events.

26. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Distance is a measure of the interval between objects, time is a measure of the interval between events.
Not more correct to say that the spacetime interval is the distance between events? Can we talk about time without bringing in relativity at some point?

27. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Smite
I am saying that I am unaware of any evidence to indicate that my position is incorrect.
Then you're either uneducated or wilfully ignorant.
I present you with the opportunity to lay out your evidence that time is an objectively real thing, and all I get is a childish insult.
How disappointing.

28. Originally Posted by Smite
I present you with the opportunity to lay out your evidence that time is an objectively real thing, and all I get is a childish insult.
How disappointing.
Given I asked YOU to present your evidence somewhat earlier and all I got was a repetition of the same unsupported assertions...
It wasn't intended as an insult but rather as an observation: your claim that time doesn't exist invalidates much of physics, geology, cosmology, biology etc.

Not more correct to say that the spacetime interval is the distance between events? Can we talk about time without bringing in relativity at some point?
Who mentioned relativity?

29. The only question I can find that you asked is "So, objectively, you die as soon as you're born?"

And I am unable to find any evidence presented by you that time exists outside of man's use of the concept. That's what I was hoping to get from you. You cannot expect me to change my position without something being presented to lead me to change. Where is it?

How does my opinion (and that's all it is - an opinion - unsupported, as you mention and as admitted by me) invalidate "physics, geology, cosmology, biology, etc."?

30. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Who mentioned relativity?
I did.Didn't it need to be brought in?

31. Originally Posted by geordief
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Who mentioned relativity?
I did.Didn't it need to be brought in?
Ah, sorry. I got confused for a while.
Relativity isn't a requirement to establish the existence of time: all that's needed is the separation between two events.
(But that leads on to my comment about "invalidating much of physics" - without time there's no relativity. Indeed, there's no such thing as speed).

32. Originally Posted by Smite
The only question I can find that you asked is "So, objectively, you die as soon as you're born?"
Which, so far, hasn't been answered.
But there was also:
Really? Still nothing but empty claims? - a implicit request for you to present your evidence.
So what is being measured? - Asked at least twice.

And I am unable to find any evidence presented by you that time exists outside of man's use of the concept. That's what I was hoping to get from you. You cannot expect me to change my position without something being presented to lead me to change. Where is it?
One more time: the separation between two (or more) events. What is it that prevents them (and everything else) occurring at the same instant?

How does my opinion (and that's all it is - an opinion - unsupported, as you mention and as admitted by me) invalidate "physics, geology, cosmology, biology, etc."?
If there's no time then there's no such thing as speed - distance covered over time - (that's kinematics out of the window), no relativity. No geological ages, no historical development of stars. No evolution (since that takes place over time which according to you doesn't exist).

33. In my first post, I said, "It [time] does not exist outside of mankind's use of this concept he created for keeping track of things."

You have presented nothing that negates the validity of that statement.

Time is not a controlling mechanism. Time does not cause change. Time does not exist as an active component of the universe. We merely devised a system for measurement of change and we call it "time".

And I will say again: This is only my opinion and I am willing to consider any evidence that contradicts it. You have presented absolutely nothing in the form of evidence. You say that time is - well, something - but do not say what that something is. A gap between two events is merely that - a gap. And what is a gap? It is an absence, ergo, nothing.

34. Originally Posted by Smite
In my first post, I said, "It [time] does not exist outside of mankind's use of this concept he created for keeping track of things."
You have presented nothing that negates the validity of that statement.
And yet you can't provide any response to the interval between birth and death.
Do you seriously think that there was no interval until we invented the measurement?

Time is not a controlling mechanism. Time does not cause change.
Straw man. No one has claimed that.

Time does not exist as an active component of the universe. We merely devised a system for measurement of change and we call it "time".
According to your unsupported belief at least.

And I will say again: This is only my opinion
Which you originally presented as fact...

and I am willing to consider any evidence that contradicts it.
Given the multiple responses (not just from me) this is not apparent.

You have presented absolutely nothing in the form of evidence.
And the wilful ignorance comes to the fore again...

You say that time is - well, something - but do not say what that something is.
So you missed the part where I used the word "dimension"?

A gap between two events is merely that - a gap. And what is a gap? It is an absence, ergo, nothing.
In the case of birth/ death then growth/ ageing would be something.

Am I to take it you have no actual support for your belief?

35. This has become a complete waste of -- dare I say it -- ?

36. Is there anything to the observation that time "moves to the beat"of c? (or is it wrong?)

At c it seems time does not flow (but also it is not a valid frame of reference)

At speeds below c does the flow of time change in (non linear) proportion to the difference between that speed and c?

What I am trying to say is "Is the speed c fundamental to our understanding of how (objective) time is experienced?"

Of course time always ticks locally at one second per second (whatever that actually means) except in the invalid frame of reference of light or presumably any massless particle.

37. Originally Posted by Smite
This has become a complete waste of -- dare I say it -- ?
Well, given your lack of evidence and the fact that you can't refute the reality, then yes, it has been.

38. Originally Posted by Smite
This has become a complete waste of -- dare I say it -- ?
You ignored my question about how other quantities such as energy are more "objectively real" than time.

39. Originally Posted by KJW
You ignored my question about how other quantities such as energy are more "objectively real" than time.
Bear in mind that different quantities have different properties and that these differences do not make one quantity more "objectively real" than another, unless one has adopted a naïve view of "objectively real". For example, time like position is a domain variable that specifies a location in a space. Alternatively, time like length is a measure of an interval between two locations in a space. But even quantities associated with material objects come in different types. For example, mass is an extensive property, whereas density is an intensive property.

40. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Smite
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that time is not an objectively real thing. The time that you are born is read from a clock. As is the time that you die. Man-made clocks. There is no universally-controlling or -monitoring entity that is time itself. It's something we made up.
Actually, every quantity has to be defined, either directly or indirectly via other quantities, in terms of how it is measured. Thus, time defined as the quantity that clocks measure is every bit as "objectively real" as any other quantity. In what way is energy (for example) more "objectively real" than time?
Are you approaching the question as to what is real and what is simply measured (or modeled)? That no fundamental distinction between the two can actually be drawn ... reality is what we measure? (observation,experience and measurement are fundamentally the same thing,are they?)

Time is just a walk on actor in this play......

edit:see we cross posted

41. Originally Posted by geordief
Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Smite
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that time is not an objectively real thing. The time that you are born is read from a clock. As is the time that you die. Man-made clocks. There is no universally-controlling or -monitoring entity that is time itself. It's something we made up.
Actually, every quantity has to be defined, either directly or indirectly via other quantities, in terms of how it is measured. Thus, time defined as the quantity that clocks measure is every bit as "objectively real" as any other quantity. In what way is energy (for example) more "objectively real" than time?
Are you approaching the question as to what is real and what is simply measured (or modeled)? That no fundamental distinction between the two can actually be drawn ... reality is what we measure? (observation,experience and measurement are fundamentally the same thing,are they?)

Time is just a walk on actor in this play......

edit:see we cross posted

Although defining time as "the quantity that clocks measure" might be unsatisfying to those who would like a deeper statement, it is in fact a proper definition because it is a genuinely meaningful definition. It is genuinely meaningful because it is able to provide specific details about how to measure time, particularly if detailed instructions on how to build a clock are provided. It does not matter that there is no philosophical statement about what time is if one has precise instructions on how to measure it.

42. Originally Posted by Smite
It [time] does not exist outside of mankind's use of this concept...
Not quite. If you’re talking about the time of physics, then like KJW says: it’s what a clock measures. What does a clock measure? Why time of course. In some sense, I suppose, the measurement is the variable. The definition might even be circular and the units of measure arbitrary (yes that last part is predicated on the existence of humans), but that doesn’t negate its utility in telling us something tangible about the world, something “outside of mankind’s use of [the clock]”.

Consider two identical atomic clocks synchronized at sea level; raise one to an altitude of several thousand feet; reunite them at sea level at some future point. They will be shown to have measured different intervals while separated. Do you deny the concreteness or “reality” of this difference? Would you at least agree that this difference has consequences in the physical world?

I think it’s a little more subtle than “time is entirely human-made” or “time is entirely outside of human-made systems of measurement”. I think you have to start out by choosing a definition, and then carefully break down what is and what is not "outside of mankind's use of [the] concept".

43. Originally Posted by Vexspits
Consider two identical atomic clocks synchronized at sea level; raise one to an altitude of several thousand feet; reunite them at sea level at some future point. They will be shown to have measured different intervals while separated. Do you deny the concreteness or “reality” of this difference? Would you at least agree that this difference has consequences in the physical world?
In fact, it has been shown that a difference in height of one-third of a meter will cause a measurable difference in the rate at which a pair of aluminum atomic clocks run. This is because of the difference in the effect of gravity on the clocks. The same two clocks will run at different rates when one of them is stationary and the other is moving several meters per second. All very interesting, but time is not a contributing factor to the clocks' operation, just basic physics (with a little relativity thrown in).
As to real world consequences - yes, these changes are important. One example is that adjustments to the clock readings in GPS satellites must be made in order to retain accuracy.

Originally Posted by Vexspits
I think you have to start out by choosing a definition, and then carefully break down what is and what is not "outside of mankind's use of [the] concept".
Excellent suggestion. I have previously posted my preferred definition of time. I wish others would also do so. Maybe then we could have a less-contentious discussion.

44. Originally Posted by KJW
You ignored my question about how other quantities such as energy are more "objectively real" than time.
I apologize. I thought that was a rhetorical question. I do reject your phrase of "more objectively real," however. Something is objectively real or it is not. there are no partial stages.

Energy is easily observed and its source and consequences defined. In my opinion (Dywyddyr, please take note), there is no question about its objective reality

45. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
In the case of birth/ death then growth/ ageing would be something.
There you go. You have answered your own question. Physical changes in the body are what occur. Time is not the cause of those changes, just biology.

46. Originally Posted by Smite
n fact, it has been shown that a difference in height of one-third of a meter will cause a measurable difference in the rate at which a pair of aluminum atomic clocks run.
Oh, much less than that: As little as a tenth of a millimeter. https://www.newscientist.com/article...ou-age-faster/

Originally Posted by Smite
Time does not cause change.
Originally Posted by Smite
All very interesting, but time is not a contributing factor to the clocks' operation, just basic physics (with a little relativity thrown in).
Who said anything about the time of physics being the cause of change or of the “clocks’ operation”. Dywyddyr already addressed this straw man. What I’m suggesting to you is that the time of physics reveals something tangible about the world—something that has nothing to do with humans.

Originally Posted by Smite
I have previously posted my preferred definition of time.
Forgive me. I’ve scanned your posts. What is your definition of “time” again?

[

47. I have mentioned a few times that I believe time to be nothing more than a system created by man for keeping track of things.
I didn't specifically refer to that as a definition, but you can consider it as such.

48. Originally Posted by Smite
Energy is easily observed
Really? An object in motion is said to possess kinetic energy. But all one observes is an object in motion. Where is the kinetic energy?

Originally Posted by Smite
there is no question about its objective reality
You also said that mass is objectively real. In what way is mass objectively real? Or alternatively, what is mass?

49. Originally Posted by Smite
Time is not the cause of those changes
Another straw man - no one claimed that.

just biology.
And those changes take place over time.
The body is state A at one time and and state B at a later time. We're back to interval again.

50. Originally Posted by KJW
Really? An object in motion is said to possess kinetic energy. But all one observes is an object in motion. Where is the kinetic energy?
Kinetic energy is calculated. If you know the mass and velocity of the object, you can easily calculates its kinetic energy.

Originally Posted by KJW
You also said that mass is objectively real. In what way is mass objectively real? Or alternatively, what is mass?
Mass is the amount of matter in an object.

Is that the end of the pop quiz? How often do we have these little tests? And what do you hope to gain from them?

51. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
The body is state A at one time and and state B at a later time. We're back to interval again.
Yes, we are. And that interval is measured in increments of time. So we are back to time being a measurement again.

52. Originally Posted by Smite
Originally Posted by KJW
Really? An object in motion is said to possess kinetic energy. But all one observes is an object in motion. Where is the kinetic energy?
Kinetic energy is calculated. If you know the mass and velocity of the object, you can easily calculates its kinetic energy.
So it's not observed. And if it's calculated, it's a man-made notion and therefore, according to your own statements about time, not objectively real.

Originally Posted by Smite
Originally Posted by KJW
You also said that mass is objectively real. In what way is mass objectively real? Or alternatively, what is mass?
Mass is the amount of matter in an object.
What does that mean?

Originally Posted by Smite
Is that the end of the pop quiz? How often do we have these little tests? And what do you hope to gain from them?
I hoping to show you the inconsistency between your view of time being not objectively real and your view of other quantities such as energy and mass being objectively real.

53. Originally Posted by KJW
So it's [kinetic energy] not observed. And if it's calculated, it's a man-made notion and therefore, according to your own statements about time, not objectively real.
It IS observed when you see the object in motion. It is only the quantity that is calculated.

Originally Posted by Smite
Mass is the amount of matter in an object.
Originally Posted by KJW
What does that mean?
Exactly what it says. Pretty simple and straightforward. When you observe an object, you see its mass.

Originally Posted by KJW
I hoping to show you the inconsistency between your view of time being not objectively real and your view of other quantities such as energy and mass being objectively real.
You failed. There is no inconsistency.

54. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Smite
Mass is the amount of matter in an object.
What does that mean?
Bear in mind that I have a bottle that contains 1 litre of milk. That is, the amount of matter (milk) in that bottle is 1 litre. But "1 litre" is a volume, not a mass. So, "amount of matter" doesn't really specify mass, and therefore isn't an adequate statement of what mass is.

55. Originally Posted by Smite
Originally Posted by KJW
So it's [kinetic energy] not observed. And if it's calculated, it's a man-made notion and therefore, according to your own statements about time, not objectively real.
It IS observed when you see the object in motion.
Just like I observe time when I see a clock ticking.

56. Originally Posted by KJW
Bear in mind that I have a bottle that contains 1 litre of milk. That is, the amount of matter (milk) in that bottle is 1 litre. But "1 litre" is a volume, not a mass. So, "amount of matter" doesn't really specify mass, and therefore isn't an adequate statement of what mass is.
If your one-litre bottle contained no mass (other than the bottle itself), then it would be an empty bottle. Just because the measurement of the volume of milk is given in litres, it does not mean that the milk has no mass.

57. Originally Posted by KJW
Just like I observe time when I see a clock ticking.
No. You are not observing time. Time does not cause the clock to tick; the mechanism of the clock does that. Change a setting on the clock so that it runs faster. Do you believe you have caused time to go faster?

58. Originally Posted by Smite
Originally Posted by KJW
Bear in mind that I have a bottle that contains 1 litre of milk. That is, the amount of matter (milk) in that bottle is 1 litre. But "1 litre" is a volume, not a mass. So, "amount of matter" doesn't really specify mass, and therefore isn't an adequate statement of what mass is.
If your one-litre bottle contained no mass (other than the bottle itself), then it would be an empty bottle. Just because the measurement of the volume of milk is given in litres, it does not mean that the milk has no mass.
You have missed the point of what I said. I asked you what mass is and you replied that it is the amount of matter. But "amount of matter" doesn't actually say what mass is because "amount of matter" could also describe volume. And how do you know the milk doesn't have zero mass if you can't tell me what mass is?

59. Seriously, you don't know what matter is? How about if I use "stuff" instead of matter?

60. Originally Posted by Smite
Seriously, you don't know what matter is? How about if I use "stuff" instead of matter?
Whether it's stuff, matter, or milk, you still haven't distinguished between mass and volume. So you haven't answered my question of what mass is.

61.

62. Originally Posted by Smite
This article confirms my point that the only meaningful definition of a quantity is a statement of how it is measured. Thus, you have not demonstrated that mass is objectively real.

63. Then you obviously didn't understand what you read.
I couldn't find a more simplistic article to explain mass, matter, and volume.
I suggest you spend some time scouring the web until you find an article that you can understand.

64. Originally Posted by Smite
Then you obviously didn't understand what you read.
I couldn't find a more simplistic article to explain mass, matter, and volume.
I suggest you spend some time scouring the web until you find an article that you can understand.
Condescending petulance in a vain effort to cover up your own fuzzy-headed imprecision doesn't fly here. What you are being asked to do is to explain yourself. We understand the concepts very well, thank you, and KJW more than others. You're making appeals to "common sense" while simultaneously proposing non-commonsensical positions. You'll have to do much better if you're not to be dismissed as yet another crank with a near-infinite ratio of bluster to knowledge.

65. Originally Posted by Smite
Then you obviously didn't understand what you read.
I understood it very well. Did you?

Originally Posted by Smite
I couldn't find a more simplistic article to explain mass, matter, and volume.
Simplistic is not what is called for here. What is called for is precise genuine meaning.

Originally Posted by Smite
I suggest you spend some time scouring the web until you find an article that you can understand.
For my reply to this, I'll defer to tk421.

66. Originally Posted by Smite
So we are back to time being a measurement again.
Which puts us back to a question asked several times - but so far not answered even once: a measurement of what?

67. KJW,

In re-reading my last post, I can see why you would take offense. I apologize for that; it was not intended to be insulting.

68. Originally Posted by KJW
Whether it's stuff, matter, or milk, you still haven't distinguished between mass and volume. So you haven't answered my question of what mass is.
If I haven't become too much of a pariah in some minds, let me try to answer this.

A definition of matter is "a substance that ... occupies physical space."

A definition of mass is "the amount of matter in an object." It is normally expressed in grams or kilograms.

A definition of volume is "a quantity of three-dimensional space."

Milk is matter. Mass is weight. Volume is space. The matter in your litre of milk weighs approximately one kilogram. That is its mass. The matter in your milk takes one litre of space. That is its volume. It isn't a question of distinguishing between mass and volume: you have two different measurements of the matter in your milk.

I hope this helps.

69. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Smite
Time is not the cause of those changes
Another straw man - no one claimed that.

just biology.
And those changes take place over time.
The body is state A at one time and and state B at a later time. We're back to interval again.
An object has a presence in time within a dimension. A dimension is a worm hole entry point and exit point combined and everything inside has a presence in time.

70. Originally Posted by Daniel Arkangel
A dimension is a worm hole entry point and exit point combined
No it's not.

71. An object has a presence in time within a dimension. A dimension is a worm hole entry point and exit point combined and everything inside has a presence in time.
Another ignorant nutcase... :sigh:

72. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Daniel Arkangel
A dimension is a worm hole entry point and exit point combined
No it's not.
This universe is such a dimension it is 10 Trillion zeros in meters in diameter, it has a wall and all galaxies appear to originate from one point of that dimension. You will find in person I will prove it to you in the future.

73. Originally Posted by PhDemon
An object has a presence in time within a dimension. A dimension is a worm hole entry point and exit point combined and everything inside has a presence in time.
Another ignorant nutcase... :sigh:
Your reply is sheer ignorance without understanding or comprehending what it is that I wrote and assumes something without asking further questions as to why? Or giving a reason so in person I will show you that an object has a presence in time and then we'll discuss manners.

74. If you are from the future, tell us what will happen tomorrow in football....

75. This guy is just the latest loony... Ignore him, he'll get bored or banned soon...

76. Originally Posted by Daniel Arkangel
This universe is such a dimension it is 10 Trillion zeros in meters in diameter, it has a wall and all galaxies appear to originate from one point of that dimension.
Grossly wrong.

You will find in person I will prove it to you in the future.
Doubtful.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement