Notices
Results 1 to 91 of 91
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By John Galt

Thread: For Theorist - pulling on my finger...

  1. #1 For Theorist - pulling on my finger... 
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Try this thought for time and hopefully, sitting on the Sun , define time..
    It's the "thing" that stops me taking all my breaths, thinking all my thoughts, eating all my meals, at once. That prevents me being born as soon as, or even before, I die. That separates "yesterday" from "today" from "tomorrow".
    The non-spacial interval between "then" and "now".


    Yes, obscure thread title, you have to be around my age to get it.


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,640
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Yes, obscure thread title, you have to be around my age to get it.
    Not that obscure, actually. There was an iPhone app called Pull My Finger that was popular a few years back. My nephews could not get enough of it.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Not that obscure, actually. There was an iPhone app called Pull My Finger that was popular a few years back. My nephews could not get enough of it.
    Never heard of it!
    My reference definitely pre-dates iPhones (and has some reference to time - hence the choice).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Try this thought for time and hopefully, sitting on the Sun , define time..
    It's the "thing" that stops me taking all my breaths, thinking all my thoughts, eating all my meals, at once. That prevents me being born as soon as, or even before, I die. That separates "yesterday" from "today" from "tomorrow".
    The non-spacial interval between "then" and "now".


    Yes, obscure thread title, you have to be around my age to get it.
    I agree hunger, today , yesterday is how we perceive time, and in reality that is what we except. But time itself as a measurement, is just so wrong. We calculate it by seasons and orbital average.

    Sit on the sun, we have got no seasons so how could you determine time...Sit in a complete dark room for a week, you would not know how long you had been in their unless we told you.

    A few hours would seem an eternity.

    Stop counting time, and time no longer exists...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    But time itself as a measurement
    A measurement of...?

    We calculate it by seasons and orbital average.
    Not really.

    Sit on the sun, we have got no seasons so how could you determine time...Sit in the a complete dark room for a week, you would not know how long you had been in their unless we told you.
    A few hours would seem an eternity.
    Stop counting time, and time no longer exists...
    There's a difference between not measuring time and time not existing.
    Or are you now contending that if you sit in a dark room with no watch/ clock you won't get hungry or thirsty? That you won't get old?

    Again, all you're presenting is supposition and assertion, not reason or logic.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    But time itself as a measurement
    A measurement of...?

    We calculate it by seasons and orbital average.
    Not really.

    Sit on the sun, we have got no seasons so how could you determine time...Sit in the a complete dark room for a week, you would not know how long you had been in their unless we told you.
    A few hours would seem an eternity.
    Stop counting time, and time no longer exists...
    There's a difference between not measuring time and time not existing.
    Or are you now contending that if you sit in a dark room with no watch/ clock you won't get hungry or thirsty? That you won't get old?

    Again, all you're presenting is supposition and assertion, not reason or logic.
    I am trying to put to you , that time only exists in our minds to how we perceive time to be.

    Time only exists because we make it exist. Getting hungry is not time, getting hungry is the need for more energy in take. Getting old is decaying cells, we are no more than a rechargable battery.

    We give out energy every day , we give off heat. we are the cause by population and medicine more global heat. WE live longer, the population lives longer through medicine.

    More population, means more radio waves, more microwaves, more of every thing.

    So time truly as no meaning,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I am trying to put to you , that time only exists in our minds to how we perceive time to be.
    Time only exists because we make it exist. Getting hungry is not time, getting hungry is the need for more energy in take. Getting old is decaying cells, we are no more than a rechargable battery.
    We give out energy every day , we give off heat. we are the cause by population and medicine more global heat. WE live longer, the population lives longer through medicine.
    More population, means more radio waves, more microwaves, more of every thing.
    So time truly as no meaning,
    And STILL all you have is assertion and empty claims.
    And self-contradiction.
    If time doesn't exist how can we live "longer"?
    If getting old is decay how can decay happen if there is no passage of time?
    For someone who claimed (completely incorrectly by the way) to have no beliefs you're not doing very well...

    Could you tell me why you refuse to answer my specific questions?
    Is it that assertion and rhetoric are all you have?
    tk421 likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    One simple question:
    At one point life didn't exist: now it does.
    If time is a purely human thing that exists in our minds then how did we get here?
    If there's no time there can be no change.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I am trying to put to you , that time only exists in our minds to how we perceive time to be.
    Time only exists because we make it exist. Getting hungry is not time, getting hungry is the need for more energy in take. Getting old is decaying cells, we are no more than a rechargable battery.
    We give out energy every day , we give off heat. we are the cause by population and medicine more global heat. WE live longer, the population lives longer through medicine.
    More population, means more radio waves, more microwaves, more of every thing.
    So time truly as no meaning,
    And STILL all you have is assertion and empty claims.
    And self-contradiction.
    If time doesn't exist how can we live "longer"?
    If getting old is decay how can decay happen if there is no passage of time?
    For someone who claimed (completely incorrectly by the way) to have no beliefs you're not doing very well...

    Could you tell me why you refuse to answer my specific questions?
    Is it that assertion and rhetoric are all you have?
    It is not easy to build a debate that makes a lot of sense with not knowing all the terminology.

    How do we live longer, simple better maintained energy levels, I think a person can expend their energy through illness, their body fights using its energy potential.

    Medicine helps us to live longer, back in the old times, the average age expectancy was less.

    Decay happens by cellular break down, expended energy like dead skin.

    Like ice decays through heat. We decay also, as heat excites our electrons...time is energy life expectancy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    It is not easy to build a debate that makes a lot of sense with not knowing all the terminology.
    It's nothing to do with terminology - you have no argument. Am I using any particularly abstruse terminology?

    How do we live longer, simple better maintained energy levels, I think a person can expend their energy through illness, their body fights using its energy potential.
    Medicine helps us to live longer, back in the old times, the average age expectancy was less.
    Bzzzt. Error. All the highlighted words indicate you accept time. You can't argue that time doesn't exist while using the concept to "bolster" your claim.
    By saying we live longer you're saying that we're alive for a greater amount of time. Got it?

    Decay happens by cellular break down, expended energy like dead skin.
    You missed the point. If time doesn't exist then decay cannot happen - everything would remain as it was.

    Like ice decays through heat.
    And with the passage of time.

    We decay also, as heat excites our electrons
    No.

    time is energy life expectancy?
    Bzzt again. Life expectancy is "defined" in the units of time. You can't have an equation that defines a measure by referring to itself.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    One simple question:
    At one point life didn't exist: now it does.
    If time is a purely human thing that exists in our minds then how did we get here?
    If there's no time there can be no change.
    The life did not exist was a thought and not fact, although how we perceive life may not be reality to the actual facts.

    How did we get time, the first ever scientific thought maybe, maybe time started as days based just on day and night, and then later as the sun moved and shadows moved, someone added some extra.. and so on..

    Right down to today with the nano second, did this exist in the past? no some one else added it to time because it sounded a good thought at their present.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    The life did not exist was a thought and not fact
    This is incorrect.

    How did we get time, the first ever scientific thought maybe, maybe time started as days based just on day and night, and then later as the sun moved and shadows moved, someone added some extra.. and so on..
    Assumption again. That we "got time" that is.

    Right down to today with the nano second, did this exist in the past? no some one else added it to time because it sounded a good thought at their present.
    What? I have no idea what your native language is, but it doesn't appear to be English.

    Do you have ANYTHING other than (uniformed) assertion and rhetoric to support your view? Anything at all? Please?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    It is not easy to build a debate that makes a lot of sense with not knowing all the terminology.
    It's nothing to do with terminology - you have no argument. Am I using any particularly abstruse terminology?

    How do we live longer, simple better maintained energy levels, I think a person can expend their energy through illness, their body fights using its energy potential.
    Medicine helps us to live longer, back in the old times, the average age expectancy was less.
    Bzzzt. Error. All the highlighted words indicate you accept time. You can't argue that time doesn't exist while using the concept to "bolster" your claim.
    By saying we live longer you're saying that we're alive for a greater amount of time. Got it?

    No, by saying we live longer, is saying we conserve energy better through medicines etc


    Decay happens by cellular break down, expended energy like dead skin.
    You missed the point. If time doesn't exist then decay cannot happen - everything would remain as it was.

    Like ice decays through heat.
    And with the passage of time.

    We decay also, as heat excites our electrons
    No.

    You say no, so you are saying we are not made from atoms? If we are made of atoms we have electrons, electrons excite by heat. We have enough electricity on our body to run a light bulb.

    time is energy life expectancy?
    Bzzt again. Life expectancy is "defined" in the units of time. You can't have an equation that defines a measure by referring to itself.
    No, you perceive life to be measured by time, time is measured by your time of life expectancy, time is infinite, our life cycle is just a glitch on the line of time.

    I say time, because that is the wording we use, logically I will still use my clock and calender, but this still doe's not mean nothing apart from a visual representation of our bodies decay and use of energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Do you have ANYTHING other than (uniformed) assertion and rhetoric to support your view? Anything at all? Please?[/QUOTE]


    Yes, I have logic. Imagine in the past or even the future we were born on a planet as the cave man. However this planet had no orbitals or orbited.

    Your reasoning for time of the orbit around the sun would have no meaning what so ever.

    So there is no time,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    No, by saying we live longer, is saying we conserve energy better through medicines etc
    Yet what you mean by "live longer" is that we are alive for a greater amount of time.
    If all we were doing was "conserving energy" while not living for a greater amount of time then life expectancy would not alter.

    You say no, so you are saying we are not made from atoms? If we are made of atoms we have electrons, electrons excite by heat. We have enough electricity on our body to run a light bulb.
    Decay of the human body is cellular decay (as you yourself stated earlier) - not "electrons decaying".

    No, you perceive life to be measured by time, time is measured by your time of life expectancy
    What?

    time is infinite, our life cycle is just a glitch on the line of time.
    Wait a minute - you started off by claiming time doesn't exist. Now you're saying it's infinite?

    I say time, because that is the wording we use, logically I will still use my clock and calender, but this still doe's not mean nothing apart from a visual representation of our bodies decay and use of energy.
    And if there were no time nothing would or could change.

    Do you have anything other than assertions?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Yes, I have logic.
    Then, please, start to employ it, because it's been conspicuously absent so far.

    Imagine in the past or even the future
    Um, if there's no time then how can there be a past or a future?

    we were born on a planet as the cave man. However this planet had no orbitals or orbited.
    You mean, something like a troglobite? Can you explain why these creatures grow old and die?
    Can you answer my earlier question: Or are you now contending that if you sit in a dark room with no watch/ clock you won't get hungry or thirsty? That you won't get old?

    Your reasoning for time of the orbit around the sun would have no meaning what so ever.
    So what? Are you claiming that time wouldn't pass?

    So there is no time,
    So, similarly, if there were a sun with no planets that sun wouldn't experience time and would, therefore, last forever. Unchanging.

    If, for example, at some stage there were no universe then there'd be no planets to orbit and therefore no time passing. So there'd be no universe "forever" because, with no time, there can be no change.

    Got it.
    You're wrong.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    No, by saying we live longer, is saying we conserve energy better through medicines etc
    Yet what you mean by "live longer" is that we are alive for a greater amount of time.
    If all we were doing was "conserving energy" while not living for a greater amount of time then life expectancy would not alter.

    You say no, so you are saying we are not made from atoms? If we are made of atoms we have electrons, electrons excite by heat. We have enough electricity on our body to run a light bulb.
    Decay of the human body is cellular decay - not "electrons decaying".

    No, you perceive life to be measured by time, time is measured by your time of life expectancy
    What?

    time is infinite, our life cycle is just a glitch on the line of time.
    Wait a minute - you started off by claiming time doesn't exist. Now you're saying it's infinite?

    I say time, because that is the wording we use, logically I will still use my clock and calender, but this still doe's not mean nothing apart from a visual representation of our bodies decay and use of energy.
    And if there were no time nothing would or could change.

    Do you have anything other than assertions?
    infinite like pye, so you can not have set modules like an hour, it is like variance........
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    infinite like pye, so you can not have set modules like an hour, it is like variance........
    Gibberish.
    If it doesn't exist (as you claim) how can it be infinite?

    And please: respond to my questions. Stop ignoring them.
    (Unless of course, you realise that by answering questions you'll eventually [Deo volente] come to understand your error, and you're fighting hard to retain your blind ignornace).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Yes, I have logic.
    Then, please, start to employ it, because it's been conspicuously absent so far.

    Imagine in the past or even the future
    Um, if there's no time then how can there be a past or a future?

    we were born on a planet as the cave man. However this planet had no orbitals or orbited.
    You mean, something like a troglobite? Can you explain why these creatures grow old and die?
    Can you answer my earlier question: Or are you now contending that if you sit in a dark room with no watch/ clock you won't get hungry or thirsty? That you won't get old?

    Your reasoning for time of the orbit around the sun would have no meaning what so ever.
    So what? Are you claiming that time wouldn't pass?

    So there is no time,
    So, similarly, if there were a sun with no planets that sun wouldn't experience time and would, therefore, last forever. Unchanging.

    If, for example, at some stage there were no universe then there'd be no planets to orbit and therefore no time passing. So there'd be no universe "forever" because, with no time, there can be no change.

    Got it.
    You're wrong.
    Logically off cause we would get old and hungry, and off cause we die. The troglobite, interesting wording.

    A slow matabolism...doe's the troglobite have a god life expectancy?

    I mention past and future only as the sense to help you understand my meanings.

    And no, there would always be variance in an empty universe.

    Time as we perceive it is measured velocity of orbital.

    Past and present yes, future yes, but time no. Time as no meaning as siting on an isolate planet would logically show if we was born there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    infinite like pye, so you can not have set modules like an hour, it is like variance........
    Gibberish.
    If it doesn't exist (as you claim) how can it be infinite?

    And please: respond to my questions. Stop ignoring them.
    (Unless of course, you realise that by answering questions you'll eventually [Deo volente] come to understand your error, and you're fighting hard to retain your blind ignornace).
    Later today I will draw a picture and explain it the easy way. With diagrams, it is not ignorance, it is just hard to see.
    I see it easy,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Logically off cause we would get old and hungry, and off cause we die.
    Why would we get old? Why would we die?
    If there's no time then can't get old, surely?

    And no, there would always be variance in an empty universe.
    Please answer the question I asked. (And I'm not going to get sidetracked by your unsupported assertion here).

    Time as we perceive it is measured velocity of orbital.
    No it isn't. A year is one single measure of time: we have many others. See later.

    Past and present yes, future yes, but time no. Time as no meaning as siting on an isolate planet would logically show if we was born there.
    Assertion again.
    Do troglobites live forever?

    Okay, try this one: if, magically, the Earth were moved closer to the Sun so that we orbited in half the time. (I say "magically" because then we can also fix things like overheating due to increased insolation).
    How long would we live? Half as long? Twice as long? The same? Ignore the fact that we'd live for twice as many arbitrary "years" (because the new year would only be half as long), I'm talking about actual interval from birth to death (measure it in seconds to get rid of the discrepancy, or keep "Old Years" as a measure).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Later today I will draw a picture and explain it the easy way. With diagrams, it is not ignorance, it is just hard to see.
    I can't wait.

    I see it easy,
    Yes, but, as numerous threads and statements of yours have demonstrated, your vision is grossly faulty.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman WaterWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    KZN, South Africa
    Posts
    79
    Weel, I would like to weigh in on this topic. This is interesting, and I have thought of this as well. But, before I go ANY further, I must emphasize that I do not agree with theorist. Again, I DO NOT AGREE WITH HIM!!

    But, he does make a good point. "Time" as we know it (the flow of years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds etc...) does not exist. For the fact that "time" is a man-made term. "Time" is the flow of events from one to the other. If you want to, you could compare it to energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transfered from one form to the other. Same with "time", it flows from one to the next. I know this is a crude example, but it is the closest I can come up with right now.

    According to Wiki -

    "Time is a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future,[1][2][3][4][5][6] and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them.[3][7][8] Time has long been a major subject of study in religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars." (Time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

    I just have one problem with the above. If the events can be "ordered", then surely we should be able to go from present to future(which we always do) and in reverse at will? (I was thinking about this a few days ago, and didn't quite understand it myself. I'm still reasoning through it, and will fill in gaps as soon as I have them.) But, just from the above extract, it would seem that we need a new definition of "time".

    As far as I know, the current operational definition of "time" is such - It is the measure of elapsed moments between events. But even this is circularity. A moment is defined as - "a short period in time" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_(time))

    Which, in turn, bring me back to what I am saying, theorist has a good point. But he is wrong. In so many ways. "Time" does exist, it is calculable and measurable (please excuse the spelling), how-ever, we as humans have the wrong definition of time.

    Please, feel free to correct me at any "time".


    theorist, please do research before posting. And if you don't understand a word or phrase, ask us. We will help you to understand.
    Last edited by WaterWalker; February 28th, 2013 at 04:45 AM. Reason: Forgot the line at the end.
    "No army is stronger than an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

    Dywyddyr - "You're rather good at denying reality, aren't you?"
    Plautus - "False."
    Dywyddyr - "And you've done it again. Well done. Would you like a biscuit?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by WaterWalker View Post
    But, he does make a good point. "Time" as we know it (the flow of years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds etc...) does not exist.
    Untrue.
    He's conflating (and confusing) the accepted fact that our terms for measurement of time are arbitrary with the the idea that time itself is a man-made construct.

    For the fact that "time" is a man-made term.
    Can you list any term for us that isn't man made?

    I just have one problem with the above. If the events can be "ordered", then surely we should be able to go from present to future(which we always do) and in reverse at will? (I was thinking about this a few days ago, and didn't quite understand it myself. I'm still reasoning through it, and will fill in gaps as soon as I have them.) But, just from the above extract, it would seem that we need a new definition of "time".
    You're taking the fact that we can travel backwards and forwards in space and trying to apply it to time. Why should time behave the same as distance?

    As far as I know, the current operational definition of "time" is such - It is the measure of elapsed moments between events. But even this is circularity.
    No more circular than "distance is the measure of separation between objects".
    (Although, personally, I'd have used, again, the word "separation" rather than "elapsed moments" in the one you quoted).

    Which, in turn, bring me back to what I am saying, theorist has a good point.
    Nah, not even close.

    we as humans have the wrong definition of time.
    Since definitions are by, er, definition, human constructs then how can they be "wrong"?
    What's the "correct" definition of a metre? A frog? They are no more wrong (or right) than the definition of time.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Senior pineapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ireland someplace
    Posts
    359
    In my opinion, I would say time exists within the same mathematical abstract concept that width and height exists as dimensions.

    Time and distance exist because you can measure both and make accurate predictions. A frog’s brain evolved to interpret both time and distance to catch the fly to survive.

    But does the past and future exist in reality? My current thinking is, yes, but only as a virtual interpretation in our brains as part of the brains mechanism to measure time.

    I’m assuming a frog has a memory too (And possibly some primitive understanding of future?); otherwise it’ll not be able to measure where the fly will be before he flips out his tongue to catch the fly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    T1.JPGT2.JPGT3.JPGT4.JPG

    So imagine you are the first person/s to scientifically look at time, Galileo maybe...

    Your time is based on Velocity and distance, you make a measurement....

    T=V+D

    So time as you perceive it and calculate it is completely wrong as my drawings show.

    If for example you had seen drawing 2 in the list, you would now consider a year to be only 6 months, half the time.

    You are wrong sir and so is the entire science department on time. This is not logical in the slightest sense of reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman WaterWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    KZN, South Africa
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by WaterWalker View Post
    But, he does make a good point. "Time" as we know it (the flow of years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds etc...) does not exist.
    Untrue.
    He's conflating (and confusing) the accepted fact that our terms for measurement of time are arbitrary with the the idea that time itself is a man-made construct.
    I'm not quite sure that I understand this sentence, but if you're saying that he is confusing actual time (the flow of events) with arbitrary time(our measurement between the events), then I completely agree.

    For the fact that "time" is a man-made term.
    Can you list any term for us that isn't man made?
    I guess I wasn't to clear on this. Sorry. See previous quote for what I was trying to say with this sentence.

    I just have one problem with the above. If the events can be "ordered", then surely we should be able to go from present to future(which we always do) and in reverse at will? (I was thinking about this a few days ago, and didn't quite understand it myself. I'm still reasoning through it, and will fill in gaps as soon as I have them.) But, just from the above extract, it would seem that we need a new definition of "time".

    You're taking the fact that we can travel backwards and forwards in space and trying to apply it to time. Why should time behave the same as distance?
    I was hoping this sentence would come into play. And, I am comparing time to direction in space. Simplified, time is a dimension of it's own. Just like up, down, left, right, forward and backwards. With that said, and the fact we are able to move through the other dimensions, it should make sence that we can move through the time dimension at will.

    As far as I know, the current operational definition of "time" is such - It is the measure of elapsed moments between events. But even this is circularity.

    No more circular than "distance is the measure of separation between objects".
    (Although, personally, I'd have used, again, the word "separation" rather than "elapsed moments" in the one you quoted).
    All that is, is wordplay. Changing a few words around won't make the problem turn around. . For instance, taking your example - distance is the measure of seperation between objects. It could also have been written as - distance is the measure of space between objects. One word different, but still means the same.

    Which, in turn, bring me back to what I am saying, theorist has a good point.
    Nah, not even close.
    Ok. Maybe not that close.

    we as humans have the wrong definition of time.
    Since definitions are by, er, definition, human constructs then how can they be "wrong"?
    What's the "correct" definition of a metre? A frog? They are no more wrong (or right) than the definition of time.[/quote]

    Here, I am refering specifically to the time construct. I'm sure that if we go in-depth in a vast amount of definitions, we will find fault with them. As we can find fault in everything.
    "No army is stronger than an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

    Dywyddyr - "You're rather good at denying reality, aren't you?"
    Plautus - "False."
    Dywyddyr - "And you've done it again. Well done. Would you like a biscuit?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    T=V+D
    Incorrect, T=D/V. And note that V includes time in its definition. Without time there can be no motion.

    T1.JPGT2.JPGT3.JPGT4.JPG
    So time as you perceive it and calculate it is completely wrong as my drawings show.
    All you're doing here is showing that a closer orbit means a shorter year. This is not under dispute, and does not support your point.

    If for example you had seen drawing 2 in the list, you would now consider a year to be only 6 months, half the time.
    So what?
    All that would mean is that we would have defined a "year" as what is (to us here) only 6 months long.

    You are wrong sir and so is the entire science department on time. This is not logical in the slightest sense of reality.
    Incorrect. You're still confusing one single ("arbitrarily" defined) unit of time with time itself. In itself a failure of your "logic".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Only energy exists, like a 6v battery, a six volt battery as a life spam of 6v, it as no virtual time.

    A Star that dies as such, it as expelled its energy, there is no virtual time to that

    I can give you a list of huge proportion, but it all comes down to natural state of energy..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    [QUOTE=Dywyddyr;398192]
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    T=V+D
    Incorrect, T=D/V. And note that V includes time in its definition. Without time there can be no motion.

    T1.JPGT2.JPGT3.JPGT4.JPG
    So time as you perceive it and calculate it is completely wrong as my drawings show.
    All you're doing here is showing that a closer orbit means a shorter year. This is not under dispute, and does not support your point.

    If for example you had seen drawing 2 in the list, you would now consider a year to be only 6 months, half the time.
    So what?
    All that would mean is that we would have defined a "year" as what is (to us here) only 6 months long.

    NO it doe's not, you re not seen the point. On my inner planet I would live until I was 200 years old...think about it i am right
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by WaterWalker View Post
    I'm not quite sure that I understand this sentence, but if you're saying that he is confusing actual time (the flow of events) with arbitrary time(our measurement between the events), then I completely agree.
    Yes, that's what I'm saying.

    I was hoping this sentence would come into play. And, I am comparing time to direction in space. Simplified, time is a dimension of it's own. Just like up, down, left, right, forward and backwards. With that said, and the fact we are able to move through the other dimensions, it should make sence that we can move through the time dimension at will.
    But time isn't a spacial dimension, so why should it behave like one?

    All that is, is wordplay. Changing a few words around won't make the problem turn around. . For instance, taking your example - distance is the measure of seperation between objects. It could also have been written as - distance is the measure of space between objects. One word different, but still means the same.
    No, it's not wordplay at all.
    The fact that this object isn't sat directly where that object is means there is some sort of separation: this is called distance.
    The fact that this object IS sat where that object was "earlier" means there is some some sort of separation: in this case it's not a spacial separation (because the locations are identical), it's temporal - this is called time.

    Here, I am refering specifically to the time construct. I'm sure that if we go in-depth in a vast amount of definitions, we will find fault with them. As we can find fault in everything.
    But it doesn't alter the fact that ALL definitions are human constructs and are therefore equally right (or wrong). You can't claim that we have the "wrong definition of time" unless you can show that there's a "real", "actual" one.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    NO it doe's not, you re not seen the point. On my inner planet I would live until I was 200 years old...think about it i am right
    You would live 200 years IF you counted years of that planet.
    If I stayed on Earth how long would I say you lived?
    If we counted your lifetime in seconds would you live for 70x365x24x60x62 seconds (70 "Earth years") or are you claiming you'd live for 200x365x24x60x60 seconds (200 "Earth years")?
    In the latter case you are entirely, utterly and completely wrong.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Only energy exists
    Wrong

    it as no virtual time
    But it has real time.

    A Star that dies as such, it as expelled its energy, there is no virtual time to that
    I have no idea what "virtual time" means in this context. But a star does have time - that's HOW it manages to expend energy.

    I can give you a list of huge proportion, but it all comes down to natural state of energy..
    Unsupported claim...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    NO it doe's not, you re not seen the point. On my inner planet I would live until I was 200 years old...think about it i am right
    You would live 200 years IF you counted years of that planet.
    If I stayed on Earth how long would I say you lived?
    If we counted your lifetime in seconds would you live for 70x365x24x60x62 seconds (70 "Earth years") or are you claiming you'd live for 200x365x24x60x60 seconds (200 "Earth years")?
    In the latter case you are entirely, utterly and completely wrong.
    NO , perceived perception of reality. Not 200 of our known perceived perception.

    If our planet orbit was at a greater distance, diameter, from the sun and we measured time the way we do...we could die within one year..if thats how we perceived time...

    And to add- yes velocity and everything else you use to calculate with time, would be completely wrong..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    NO , perceived perception of reality. Not 200 of our known perceived perception.
    If our planet orbit was at a greater distance, diameter, from the sun and we measured time the way we do...we could die within one year..if thats how we perceived time...
    You're still unclear. I do wish your English was better. What's your native language? Maybe it would be easier to explain in that and I'd try a translation.
    Do you mean within 1 year as seen from Earth?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    NO , perceived perception of reality. Not 200 of our known perceived perception.
    If our planet orbit was at a greater distance, diameter, from the sun and we measured time the way we do...we could die within one year..if thats how we perceived time...
    You're still unclear. I do wish your English was better. What's your native language? Maybe it would be easier to explain in that and I'd try a translation.
    Do you mean within 1 year as seen from Earth?
    Yes, as we see one year from the earth, our perceived image at different diameters would be completely different.

    Measuring time this way can just not be accurate

    Velocities would change, as we would calculate them differently .

    I am not debating the facts that time as a word exists as a meaning, although it could of been called something else.

    The fact that time how you measure it , is no more than velocities and distance....and that only can be a supposition as we perceive it to be.
    So if something as the heisenberg uncertainty about it, that can not be 100% fact, and in science if unproven...

    we should not believe it....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Yes, as we see one year from the earth
    Then you are wrong.
    Please provide some evidence for this assertion.

    Measuring time this way can just not be accurate
    Maybe you're unaware that we have other measures of time?

    Velocities would change, as we would calculate them differently
    What?

    The fact that time how you measure it , is no more than velocities and distance....and that only can be a supposition as we perceive it to be.
    Fail again. Velocity includes time> Velocity is distance covered per unit of time.
    It's not a supposition.

    So if something as the heisenberg uncertainty about it, that can not be 100% fact, and in science if unproven.
    I have no idea what you're attempting to get across here. And, apparently, neither do you.

    we should not believe it....
    Yet you can't provide anything other than (uninformed) assertion and vague (and incorrect) hand-waving to show why we shouldn't.
    Are you contending that if you sit in a dark room with no watch/ clock you won't get old?
    If there were a sun with no planets would that sun experience time?
    Why don't troglobites live forever?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Yes, as we see one year from the earth
    Then you are wrong.
    Please provide some evidence for this assertion.

    Measuring time this way can just not be accurate
    Maybe you're unaware that we have other measures of time?

    Velocities would change, as we would calculate them differently
    What?

    The fact that time how you measure it , is no more than velocities and distance....and that only can be a supposition as we perceive it to be.
    Fail again. Velocity includes time> Velocity is distance covered per unit of time.
    It's not a supposition.

    So if something as the heisenberg uncertainty about it, that can not be 100% fact, and in science if unproven.
    I have no idea what you're attempting to get across here. And, apparently, neither do you.

    we should not believe it....
    Yet you can't provide anything other than (uninformed) assertion and vague (and incorrect) hand-waving to show why we shouldn't.
    Are you contending that if you sit in a dark room with no watch/ clock you won't get old?
    If there were a sun with no planets would that sun experience time?
    Why don't troglobites live forever?
    I think it is is going to be difficult to open up your mind enough up to see this....
    You are not seen time in the same context and understanding.
    We are not talking about getting old and dying, we are talking about the perceived image of getting old and time.

    If you was born on an isolated planet, with no orbitals,or orbits, you would have no perception of time , time would never exist to you. You do not know when you are dead, so unless there was other people, you would consider yourself immortal.

    Time would be of no relevance.

    Now look at how we measure speed, we do this by time and distance.....30 mph in our earth time, on the inner planet off the drawings that would be 60 mph as we perceived it.

    Hope you are following this so far...

    So at different diameters from the sun, all time would be different, we would have variables it is obvious.

    So the way we calculate time, can not be accurate in reality to real time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I think it is is going to be difficult to open up your mind enough up to see this....
    You seem to be confusing gross ignorance with having an open mind. They are not the same. In fact not even close.

    We are not talking about getting old and dying, we are talking about the perceived image of getting old and time.
    And you're just confused.
    Would you die? Yes or no?

    If you was born on an isolated planet, with no orbitals,or orbits, you would have no perception of time , time would never exist to you. You do not know when you are dead, so unless there was other people, you would consider yourself immortal.
    Would you die? Yes or no?

    Now look at how we measure speed, we do this by time and distance.....30 mph in our earth time, on the inner planet off the drawings that would be 60 mph as we perceived it.
    No it wouldn't. At all.
    Please "explain" how you arrived at this conclusion.

    So at different diameters from the sun, all time would be different, we would have variables it is obvious.
    Wrong on the first part and... wrong again on the second.

    So the way we calculate time, can not be accurate in reality to real time.
    I have no idea what you mean here. Firstly you claim that time doesn't exist and now you're talking about "calculated time" and "real time".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I think it is is going to be difficult to open up your mind enough up to see this....
    You seem to be confusing gross ignorance with having an open mind. They are not the same. In fact not even close.

    We are not talking about getting old and dying, we are talking about the perceived image of getting old and time.
    And you're just confused.
    Would you die? Yes or no?

    If you was born on an isolated planet, with no orbitals,or orbits, you would have no perception of time , time would never exist to you. You do not know when you are dead, so unless there was other people, you would consider yourself immortal.
    Would you die? Yes or no?

    Now look at how we measure speed, we do this by time and distance.....30 mph in our earth time, on the inner planet off the drawings that would be 60 mph as we perceived it.
    No it wouldn't. At all.
    Please "explain" how you arrived at this conclusion.

    So at different diameters from the sun, all time would be different, we would have variables it is obvious.
    Wrong on the first part and... wrong again on the second.

    So the way we calculate time, can not be accurate in reality to real time.
    I have no idea what you mean here. Firstly you claim that time doesn't exist and now you're talking about "calculated time" and "real time".
    I am surprised you can not see this, it s more than obvious to me...to be honest it took me about 4 years to explain my last thought correctly on something else.

    I apologize to you, my wording must obviously be confusing, I will regroup and think of a way and wording to explain better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Would you die? Yes or no?
    Would you die? Yes or no?
    Please "explain" how you arrived at this conclusion.
    I am surprised you can not see this, it s more than obvious to me.
    Once again, you have demonstrated, more than once and quite convincingly, that what is "obvious" to you is more often than not totally incorrect.

    to be honest it took me about 4 years to explain my last thought correctly on something else.
    Then maybe you should learn how think coherently.

    And perhaps you could at least do me the courtesy of answering my questions.
    The "Yes or No" ones should be fairly easy since there's only a 50/50 chance of you replying in a manner you didn't intend.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    The obvious is we die, doe's that need answering..!

    Dying though as nothing to do with time and the way it is measured and perceived.

    According to the way time is calculated by the orbital if we were closer to the sun, the speed of light would be twice as quick!
    Attached Images
    • File Type: jpg c.jpg (7.8 KB, 3 views)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    The obvious is we die, doe's that need answering..!
    It did need answering, since YOUR "logic" would indicate that we don't (under various circumstances).
    Then time exists, and passes. Regardless of how we measure it.

    According to the way time is calculated by the orbital if we were closer to the sun, the speed of light would be twice as quick!
    Rubbish.
    Absolute utter unmitigated rubbish.
    You seem to be ignoring, still, after numerous times of having it pointed out to you, that time is NOT "calculated" by the duration of Earth's orbit.
    You also seem to be ignoring the established fact that light travels at the same speed regardless of who measures it. (Or how it's measured).
    You're also ignoring the fact that in your own diagram light is covering HALF the distance in HALF the time. Ergo it's NOT travelling "twice as quick".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    The obvious is we die, doe's that need answering..!
    It did need answering, since YOUR "logic" would indicate that we don't (under various circumstances).
    Then time exists, and passes. Regardless of how we measure it.

    According to the way time is calculated by the orbital if we were closer to the sun, the speed of light would be twice as quick!
    Rubbish.
    Absolute utter unmitigated rubbish.
    You seem to be ignoring, still, after numerous times of having it pointed out to you, that time is NOT "calculated" by the duration of Earth's orbit.
    You also seem to be ignoring the established fact that light travels at the same speed regardless of who measures it. (Or how it's measured).
    You're also ignoring the fact that in your own diagram light is covering HALF the distance in HALF the time. Ergo it's NOT travelling "twice as quick".
    explain how you measure time...please
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    explain how you measure time...please
    It's relative.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    explain how you measure time...please
    It's relative.
    Relative to distance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    explain how you measure time...please
    It's relative.
    Relative to distance?
    Relative to who is measuring it.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    If you was born on an isolated planet, with no orbitals,or orbits, you would have no perception of time ,
    I would notice that I slept from time to time. (Oh! Was that time creeping in?)

    I would notice that after an interval I would get hungry. (Could that be a time interval?)

    I would notice at longer intervals I would need to defecate. (How old are you? 11,240 defecations. )

    In short your notion of time is badly awry.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    explain how you measure time...please
    There are various ways, with varying degrees of accuracy: Time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The current preferred method (and the SI definition) is:9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that corresponds to the transition between two electron spin energy levels of the ground state of the 133Cs atom to one second.
    In effect it's simply counting the number of occasions that something "does something" 1 and calling the time taken (i.e. how long from start to finish) 1 second.

    1 It could be a pendulum swinging from left to right, and in fact was, in earlier times.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    The obvious is we die, doe's that need answering..!
    It did need answering, since YOUR "logic" would indicate that we don't (under various circumstances).
    Then time exists, and passes. Regardless of how we measure it.

    energy exists..

    According to the way time is calculated by the orbital if we were closer to the sun, the speed of light would be twice as quick!
    Rubbish.
    Absolute utter unmitigated rubbish.
    You seem to be ignoring, still, after numerous times of having it pointed out to you, that time is NOT "calculated" by the duration of Earth's orbit.
    You also seem to be ignoring the established fact that light travels at the same speed regardless of who measures it. (Or how it's measured).

    light only travels at a percieved speed through the way time is calculated..

    You're also ignoring the fact that in your own diagram light is covering HALF the distance in HALF the time. Ergo it's NOT travelling "twice as quick".
    2 cars travelling towards each other, both at 30 mph, total speed 60 mph, sorry for the metaphor again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I would notice at longer intervals I would need to defecate. (How old are you? 11,240 defecations. )
    Celebrating your 10,000th poop would make for an awkward party...
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    2 cars travelling towards each other, both at 30 mph, total speed 60 mph, sorry for the metaphor again.
    So what?
    Each car is only doing 30 mph. And planets don't orbit "towards" the sun. 1

    1 For those that know better don't jump in because it'll only confuse theorist!
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I would notice at longer intervals I would need to defecate. (How old are you? 11,240 defecations. )
    Celebrating your 10,000th poop would make for an awkward party...
    Invite Mozart and his family!
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    explain how you measure time...please
    There are various ways, with varying degrees of accuracy: Time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The current preferred method (and the SI definition) is:9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that corresponds to the transition between two electron spin energy levels of the ground state of the 133Cs atom to one second.our current
    In effect it's simply counting the number of occasions that something "does something" 1 and calling the time taken (i.e. how long from start to finish) 1 second.

    1 It could be a pendulum swinging from left to right, and in fact was, in earlier times.
    e years,
    Ok, but do all these methods originate from the thinking off the sun dial? without original seconds that was thougth off, your new technology to measure time would still be inacurate.
    If seconds or hrs or days are based on the sun dial, this used shadows and the orbital which was a false way to use to start with. So any other information based on this , is inacurate as distance was not accounted for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Senior pineapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ireland someplace
    Posts
    359
    Hi theorist,

    Maybe I’m tumbling down the rabbit hole here, but just so I can get my head around what you’re saying…

    Let’s say we actually had another twin Earth (called Earth II) identical to our own planet we will now call Earth I. This Earth II orbits the Sun every 6 months and of our Earth I orbits the Sun every 12 months as normal. We then send out doppelgangers (of ourselves) from our Earth I to Earth II. We also give our doppelgangers a clock to take with them. What would you except to observe?

    Would you obverse that:

    1. the clock we sent to Earth II will now spin twice as fast as the clocks on our Earth I?
    2. the clock we sent to Earth II will still spin the same speed as the clocks on Earth I but appear to tick twice as slow as the native clocks of Earth II?

    Are you also saying that our doppelgangers will appear to age twice as old as we do, if we meet up after 20 years?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    explain how you measure time...please
    It's relative.
    Relative to distance?
    Relative to who is measuring it.
    Yes exactly, but also from where and how you are measuring it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    If the measurement of time is relative to the person doing the measurements, how can it be inaccurate?

    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    explain how you measure time...please
    It's relative.
    Relative to distance?
    Relative to who is measuring it.
    Yes exactly, but also from where and how you are measuring it?
    It doesn't matter.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Ok, but do all these methods originate from the thinking off the sun dial?
    I don't know what you mean by "originate".

    your new technology to measure time would still be inacurate.
    Totally wrong. We define what a second is. Therefore it can't be "wrong" (except by using an inaccurate way of counting).

    If seconds or hrs or days are based on the sun dial, this used shadows and the orbital which was a false way to use to start with. So any other information based on this , is inacurate as distance was not accounted for.
    Utter nonsense. Again. We know that those methods were imprecise. (Due, mainly to variations in the shape of the Earth).
    However if we had defined a second as some fraction of the travel of the shadow at one particular location on Earth, and found a way to replicate that measurement with precision anywhere we needed it then THAT would be the definition of second.
    You appear to be under the completely false impression that the definition of a second exists as something separate from human endeavour and that we don't match this numinous and transcendental value.
    Are you also under the impression that that also holds true for the metre? The kilogramme?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapples View Post
    Hi theorist,

    Maybe I’m tumbling down the rabbit hole here, but just so I can get my head around what you’re saying…

    Let’s say we actually had another twin Earth (called Earth II) identical to our own planet we will now call Earth I. This Earth II orbits the Sun every 6 months and of our Earth I orbits the Sun every 12 months as normal. We then send out doppelgangers (of ourselves) from our Earth I to Earth II. We also give our doppelgangers a clock to take with them. What would you except to observe?

    Would you obverse that:
    1. the clock we sent to Earth II will now spin twice as fast as the clocks on our Earth I?
    2. the clock we sent to Earth II will still spin the same speed as the clocks on Earth I but appear to tick twice as slow as the native clocks of Earth II?
    Are you also saying that our doppelgangers will appear to age twice as old as we do, if we meet up after 20 years?
    e
    That is questions that i am trying to picture, and close to context to my thinking.

    I can see the percieved image of everything would be different, our doppleganger would not see a year as we see it, they would see 2 year or 6 months depending on closeness or farness to the sun.

    As for a watch, if it was battery opperated, I would expect no difference, I am not sure , we add force to clocks and watches with some form of energy I think.

    I would imagine we would age the same, but have a different view on percieved time. They would be half or twice our age but still have the same physical appearance, but only because how they see time, again because of the different distances.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Ok, but do all these methods originate from the thinking off the sun dial?
    I don't know what you mean by "originate".

    your new technology to measure time would still be inacurate.
    Totally wrong. We define what a second is. Therefore it can't be "wrong" (except by using an inaccurate way of counting).

    If seconds or hrs or days are based on the sun dial, this used shadows and the orbital which was a false way to use to start with. So any other information based on this , is inacurate as distance was not accounted for.
    Utter nonsense. Again. We know that those methods were imprecise. (Due, mainly to variations in the shape of the Earth).
    However if we had defined a second as some fraction of the travel of the shadow at one particular location on Earth, and found a way to replicate that measurement with precision anywhere we needed it then THAT would be the definition of second.
    You appear to be under the completely false impression that the definition of a second exists as something separate from human endeavour and that we don't match this numinous and transcendental value.
    Are you also under the impression that that also holds true for the metre? The kilogramme?
    So you say use a shadow to get a second, so you do still use the orbital of the sun which is still wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I would imagine we would age the same, but have a different view on percieved time. They would be half or twice our age but still have the same physical appearance, but only because how they see time, again because of the different distances.
    Still wrong.
    They'd be the same age, the only difference is that what they call a year be 6 months to us. So if someone said they were 50 then we'd call that 25. but they would still age at the same rate. They could agree that one second is one second, and that the "difference" is in name only.
    If we found a common datum (say the second) then everyone would agree that people lived for 2207520000 seconds (what we call 70 years), it's just that, by day-to-day usage they'd call it 140 years.
    If I call something a gribbit and you call it a frog does that affect what the creature actually is? Does it affect ANYTHING about the frog? Or how we'd measure the population numbers or anything else?

    Like I and Waterwalker have pointed out, several times, you're confusing actual time (the flow of events) with arbitrary time (our measurement [or, more specifically, our nomenclature of that measurement] between the events).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    So you say use a shadow to get a second, so you do still use the orbital of the sun which is still wrong.
    The "orbital" is NOT wrong.
    I fail, completely, to understand how you arrive at this conclusion.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I would imagine we would age the same, but have a different view on percieved time. They would be half or twice our age but still have the same physical appearance, but only because how they see time, again because of the different distances.
    Still wrong.
    They'd be the same age, the only difference is that what they call a year be 6 months to us. So if someone said they were 50 then we'd call that 25. but they would still age at the same rate. They could agree that one second is one second, and that the "difference" is in name only.
    If we found a common datum (say the second) then everyone would agree that people lived for 2207520000 seconds (what we call 70 years), it's just that, by day-to-day usage they'd call it 140 years.
    If I call something a gribbit and you call it a frog does that affect what the creature actually is? Does it affect ANYTHING about the frog? Or how we'd measure the population numbers or anything else?

    Like I and Waterwalker have pointed out, several times, you're confusing actual time (the flow of events) with arbitrary time (our measurement [or, more specifically, our nomenclature of that measurement] between the events).
    I thankyou , you have just answered why there is no time, it is percieved image, that is why i said it is not about age previously. Their percieved o time would be slower or faster, they age the same yes, but they would have completely different measurement and calculations than we would of time, velocity. speed. etc.

    So distance makes time a variable, random to percieved image of the doppleganger and how they calculate time. So time is only relative to the person who is measuring it, where from and what distance from their source, we use the sun as focus point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    So you say use a shadow to get a second, so you do still use the orbital of the sun which is still wrong.
    The "orbital" is NOT wrong.
    I fail, completely, to understand how you arrive at this conclusion.
    Because if we had a tighter diameter, less circumerance of orbit, we would have different timing on our orbit.So time would be different as we perceive it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I thankyou , you have just answered why there is no time, it is percieved image, that is why i said it is not about age previously. Their percieved o time would be slower or faster, they age the same yes, but they would have completely different measurement and calculations than we would of time, velocity. speed. etc.
    Their measurement would be different, but the passage of time doesn't change. If someone who lived on a planet with 48 hour days came to Earth, they wouldn't say, "Holy crap, time passes quickly here." If they were intelligent, they would say, "Your days sure are short."

    Time didn't change, just the way we track it.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    you have just answered why there is no time, it is percieved image
    Then you have failed, utterly, to understand what was said.

    Their percieved o time would be slower or faster
    No it wouldn't. At all.

    but they would have completely different measurement and calculations than we would of time, velocity. speed. etc.
    You're STILL confusing the name of the thing with the thing itself.

    So distance makes time a variable
    No it doesn't.

    So time is only relative to the person who is measuring it, where from and what distance from their source, we use the sun as focus point.
    Wrong again. (Guys, leave relativity out of this please!)

    Once again: if we found a common datum (say the second) then everyone would agree that people lived for 2207520000 seconds (what we call 70 years), it's just that, by day-to-day usage they'd call it 140 years.
    What they CALL 140 years is NOT 140 years except in name.
    If they knew where we came from then they would have no problem whatsoever in agreeing that they lived for 70 years. Or, conversely, we'd have no problem in agreeing that we lived for 140 years if we encountered someone on their planet who didn't know where we were from.

    What a particular interval is CALLED is absolutely nothing 1 to do with the actual, measurable duration between two events (birth and death in this case).

    1 When I say "absolutely nothing" maybe I should have used the engineering term: f*ck all.
    Now do you understand?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Because if we had a tighter diameter, less circumerance of orbit, we would have different timing on our orbit.So time would be different as we perceive it.
    No. It. Wouldn't.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Not to wax poetic, but there is an old phrase "That which we call a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet."

    You're just coloring it green and calling it a quazloo. It still smells the same.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    [QUOTEbtheorist;398273]Because if we had a tighter diameter, less circumerance of orbit, we would have different timing on our orbit.So time would be different as we perceive it.
    No. It. Wouldn't.[/QUOTE]

    Yes it would...our orbit would be quicker as i have been told in other posts. So if we was to measure time by orbit, we would have quicker years, so we would live to be older, although we live the same length of time as you percieve it.
    Half the distance to the sun from our position and orbit,I would be now 78 years old, if time was calculated the way we do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Not to wax poetic, but there is an old phrase "That which we call a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet."

    You're just coloring it green and calling it a quazloo. It still smells the same.
    Interesting, however my picture as no smell or color, only obvious logic....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Yes it would...our orbit would be quicker as i have been told in other posts. So if we was to measure time by orbit, we would have quicker years, so we would live to be older, although we live the same length of time as you percieve it.
    Half the distance to the sun from our position and orbit,I would be now 78 years old, if time was calculated the way we do.
    Except that, as has been stated numerous times: a "year" is ONLY a name. It doesn't affect your ACTUAL age.
    Please read this and tell me what you don't understand:
    What a particular interval is CALLED is absolutely nothing (f*ck all) to do with the actual, measurable duration between two events.

    And also tell me why, if we lived ON the Sun, we would age and die, since, according to you, time wouldn't pass.
    Tell me why troglobites die of old age (when they don't know anything about "years" or "seasons" or "days", much less "hours, minutes and seconds".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    So if we was to measure time by orbit, we would have quicker years, so we would live to be older, although we live the same length of time as you percieve it.
    Half the distance to the sun from our position and orbit,I would be now 78 years old, if time was calculated the way we do.
    Bollocks. You would be the same age, you would just assign different numbers to it. It's the same as, for example, car speed. "I was doing well over 100". 100 what? Miles per hour, kilometres per hour, metres per second. Please start using your brain to think, not obfuscate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    only obvious logic....
    You have no logic. You can't even agree on the consequences of your own "logic".
    You persist in claiming you use logic yet you ignore that same "logic" when it shows you're incorrect.

    That is not only ILlogical it's also particularly ridiculous.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    So if we was to measure time by orbit, we would have quicker years, so we would live to be older, although we live the same length of time as you percieve it.
    Half the distance to the sun from our position and orbit,I would be now 78 years old, if time was calculated the way we do.
    Bollocks. You would be the same age, you would just assign different numbers to it. It's the same as, for example, car speed. "I was doing well over 100". 100 what? Miles per hour, kilometres per hour, metres per second. Please start using your brain to think, not obfuscate.
    Exactly what I say, the same with time, you would assign a different number to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Not to wax poetic, but there is an old phrase "That which we call a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet."

    You're just coloring it green and calling it a quazloo. It still smells the same.
    Interesting, however my picture as no smell or color, only obvious logic....
    Oh, but it does. You're claiming the smell will change if the color and name change. You say we only 'perceive' the smell because of the color and name we apply to the flower. The flower does not change. The only thing that changes is how to identify it.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Not to wax poetic, but there is an old phrase "That which we call a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet."

    You're just coloring it green and calling it a quazloo. It still smells the same.
    Interesting, however my picture as no smell or color, only obvious logic....
    Oh, but it does. You're claiming the smell will change if the color and name change. You say we only 'perceive' the smell because of the color and name we apply to the flower. The flower does not change. The only thing that changes is how to identify it.
    An object can not have the same perceived view as time, time doe;s not exist as an object. It can not be viewed the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    An object can not have the same perceived view as time, time doe;s not exist as an object. It can not be viewed the same.
    Empty assertion.
    Zero logic.
    Zero content.
    Continued failure to grasp the point (and the difference between a name and the thing itself).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    So because time cannot be touched or held in the hand, it does not exist? Can it not be quantified? Can we not test those numbers?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,531
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    So you say use a shadow to get a second, so you do still use the orbital of the sun which is still wrong.
    I hope you realise that our units of time are not defined in reference to the Earth or sun. You seem to think we measure time by our orbit of the sun.

    They are, however, just arbitrary units. The fact we have invented units to measure time does not mean that time does not exist. In fact, if anything, the fact we have invented ways to measure time (independent of the the movement of the sun; independent of the movement of anything, in fact) means that time must exist because we need to measure it.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    So because time cannot be touched or held in the hand, it does not exist? Can it not be quantified? Can we not test those numbers?
    I completely understand the meaning and context of how you perceive time. I see it however, that time is relative to thinking, maths is relevant thinking, all and most terms are relevant to thinking.
    Mass , weight, height, width, up, down, left , right, is all relative to thinking.

    I see time as the 4th dimension, and I think I can explain it.

    Well I will try.

    And this may seam far fetched.

    Pick up any 3 dimensional object.

    No matter how hard you look at that object, there is always a blind spot, the blind spot the 4 th dimension.

    As we see in 3 dimensional vision.

    Now imagine if we could see in 4 dimensional vision, what ever you are holding would be transparent. You would and would have to be able to see though that object like having x-ray vision.

    But every thing in the background , you would also see through, the world and everything would just vanish and be invisible to your sight.

    Now consider light, invisible to the eye, do our eyes see light in 4d?

    I did say this may sound strange and far fetched, and I have not completed my thought's on this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Then try not to post until you have a complete coherent thought.
    All you've done here is provide unsupported speculation and nonsense.
    Oh, and, once again, a contradiction of your original position vis a vis the existence of time.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    So because time cannot be touched or held in the hand, it does not exist? Can it not be quantified? Can we not test those numbers?
    I completely understand the meaning and context of how you perceive time. I see it however, that time is relative to thinking, maths is relevant thinking, all and most terms are relevant to thinking.
    Mass , weight, height, width, up, down, left , right, is all relative to thinking.

    I see time as the 4th dimension, and I think I can explain it.

    Well I will try.

    And this may seam far fetched.

    Pick up any 3 dimensional object.

    No matter how hard you look at that object, there is always a blind spot, the blind spot the 4 th dimension.

    As we see in 3 dimensional vision.

    Now imagine if we could see in 4 dimensional vision, what ever you are holding would be transparent. You would and would have to be able to see though that object like having x-ray vision.

    But every thing in the background , you would also see through, the world and everything would just vanish and be invisible to your sight.

    Now consider light, invisible to the eye, do our eyes see light in 4d?

    I did say this may sound strange and far fetched, and I have not completed my thought's on this.
    It almost feels here like you're just going completely Existential. I don't really like mixing philosophy too much into science (ethics is fine, of course), because it starts to pollute the science with questions that don't have any real effect on said science. Whether or not time is 'real' or 'perceived' does not affect our measurements and does not change the effect it's passage has on the universe.

    The only thing that line of reasoning does is confuse things.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    So because time cannot be touched or held in the hand, it does not exist? Can it not be quantified? Can we not test those numbers?
    I completely understand the meaning and context of how you perceive time. I see it however, that time is relative to thinking, maths is relevant thinking, all and most terms are relevant to thinking.
    Mass , weight, height, width, up, down, left , right, is all relative to thinking.

    I see time as the 4th dimension, and I think I can explain it.

    Well I will try.

    And this may seam far fetched.

    Pick up any 3 dimensional object.

    No matter how hard you look at that object, there is always a blind spot, the blind spot the 4 th dimension.

    As we see in 3 dimensional vision.

    Now imagine if we could see in 4 dimensional vision, what ever you are holding would be transparent. You would and would have to be able to see though that object like having x-ray vision.

    But every thing in the background , you would also see through, the world and everything would just vanish and be invisible to your sight.

    Now consider light, invisible to the eye, do our eyes see light in 4d?

    I did say this may sound strange and far fetched, and I have not completed my thought's on this.
    It almost feels here like you're just going completely Existential. I don't really like mixing philosophy too much into science (ethics is fine, of course), because it starts to pollute the science with questions that don't have any real effect on said science. Whether or not time is 'real' or 'perceived' does not affect our measurements and does not change the effect it's passage has on the universe.

    The only thing that line of reasoning does is confuse things.
    Philosophy?...invisability maybe through wave frequency, the x ray is close...

    And yes I see time as perceived, but decay has to have quantity..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Philosophy?
    Please, do not, EVER, post in the philosophy section. You're not equipped for it.

    And yes I see time as perceived
    But have so far failed to provide anything other than your own (extremely poor) reasoning in support of this view.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Philosophy?
    Please, do not, EVER, post in the philosophy section. You're not equipped for it.

    And yes I see time as perceived
    But have so far failed to provide anything other than your own (extremely poor) reasoning in support of this view.



    No, i explained this, that time perceived is relative to diameter, if you had nothing to compare too, and make a quantity of note, there would be no time for you just decay.

    So as decay, is in my opinion, is based on the strength,density of matter, all matter as potential energy, time is energy....and how long that energy lasts before it decays...

    So time is relative to thinking, diameter from focal point of observation, and velocity....making random points in distance, with different perceptions of time, so time as a quantity would vary....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,531
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    No, i explained this, that time perceived is relative to diameter, if you had nothing to compare too, and make a quantity of note, there would be no time for you just decay.
    Time has got nothing to do with "diameters". You can always find some way of measuring time: heartbeats, dripping water, burning candles, decay of fruit, life cycles of beetles, ...

    You do talk a lot of ignorant hogwash sometimes.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    No, i explained this, that time perceived is relative to diameter, if you had nothing to compare too, and make a quantity of note, there would be no time for you just decay.
    Which explained NOTHING. It has been pointed out to you, time and time again, that the perception of time is not time itself.
    (And, of course, that the "diameter" doesn't affect the perception at all, merely the naming convention).

    So as decay, is in my opinion, is based on the strength,density of matter, all matter as potential energy, time is energy....and how long that energy lasts before it decays...
    Why do you persist in appealing to your own opinion when it has, so many times, been shown to be in error?

    So time is relative to thinking, diameter from focal point of observation, and velocity....making random points in distance, with different perceptions of time, so time as a quantity would vary....
    Wrong again. As has been explained.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Time has got nothing to do with "diameters". You can always find some way of measuring time: heartbeats, dripping water, burning candles, decay of fruit, life cycles of beetles, ...
    Or interval between idiotic posts, of course!
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    And to think I was going to be reading a thread about fart jokes.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    I did say in the first post that the title was obscure but does relate to time.
    Maybe it's about time I explained it.
    David Bowie - Rock n Roll Suicide - YouTube
    Listen to the first verse...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. A challenge for all programmer and theorist!
    By opoint in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 4th, 2011, 05:41 AM
  2. a spinning skater pulling arms variation
    By luxtpm in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 13th, 2010, 09:23 AM
  3. see-through finger?
    By pitou777 in forum Physics
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: June 27th, 2010, 09:51 AM
  4. Cars pulling out in front of you
    By Harold14370 in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 16th, 2009, 05:47 PM
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
  •