scherado

I thank you for moving the post. What do you mean "what of it?" I don't understand the question. And I don't understand the relevance of the other units of measurement not related to duration. Are you aware that "day" and "year" are two of "the rest of" them all and are not arbitrary?

From the book God's Equation, by Amir D. Aczel, pages 6-7:

Not quite simply. Do you dispute my reason? You can't dispute my reason. You haven't disputed my reason. Your reason, I do not dispute. My reason gets to the exact heart of the matter. Your reason does not. Do you understand the several assertions I have made? Please see the beginning of this post.

The definitive answer, one that does not require theoretical speculation: Our (humans) relationship to time is most commonly based upon a physical process. Time is known to us as some physical process: Earth's rotation (named "day"); Earth's revolution around Sun (named "year"); Cesium-133 oscillating at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second; _________ (named ____)<==fill-in the blanks with reliable, predictable, record-able physical process. Any other conceptions of 'Time' is, in my opinion, speculative, theoretical and, often, fantastic--that of fantasy. Hence my characterization of 'Time'--in the locked thread--as the "handmaiden of Matter"--a phrase I conceived to discuss the subject: If there's no Matter, then there's no 'Time'. Some entertain the "scenario" of no matter, which I deem preposterous on it's face as there would be no things, no existence, as it is observed and known to us. I usually add, at this point, that the matter that must exist, generally described, must also be "in motion", as it could not be otherwise, I suspect--enter what is, generally, termed "energy". In this regard, with respect to a scenario of a "time" without matter, there are those who assert a "deity". I am Agnostic on that subject--for well-examined reasons. The invention of the mechanical clock, generally, works by mocking duration reliably and informs us the amount that has elapsed in arbitrary totals known as--seconds, minutes hours. This relationship to 'Time' is what I term the edifice of civilization, as it exists. We all can agree that civilization, generally described, is an invention and ruled by convention and based upon that which we call "time." Given our relationship with and to 'Time', if I were to ask, what is the nature of time?, I would not be asking a philosophical question and my answer would be, it is the handmaiden of Matter.

What a strange question at this particular "time" <*gasp*> on this forum! </sarcasm> It would be prudent to give an answer, at this time. The definitive answer, one that does not require theoretical speculation: Our (humans) relationship to time is most commonly based upon a physical process. Time is known to us as some physical process: Earth's rotation (named "day"); Earth's revolution around Sun (named "year"); Cesium-133 oscillating at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second; _________ (named ____)<==fill-in the blanks with reliable, predictable, record-able physical process. Any other conceptions of 'Time' is, in my opinion, speculative, theoretical and, often, fantastic--that of fantasy. Hence my characterization of 'Time'--in the locked thread--as the "handmaiden of Matter"--a phrase I conceived to discuss the subject: If there's no Matter, then there's no 'Time'. Some entertain the "scenario" of no matter, which I deem preposterous on it's face as there would be no things, no existence, as it is observed and known to us. I usually add, at this point, that the matter that must exist, generally described, must also be "in motion", as it could not be otherwise, I suspect--enter what is, generally, termed "energy". In this regard, with respect to a scenario of a "time" without matter, there are those who assert a "deity". I am Agnostic on that subject--for well-examined reasons. The invention of the mechanical clock, generally, works by mocking duration reliably and informs us the amount that has elapsed in arbitrary totals known as--seconds, minutes hours. This relationship to 'Time' is what I term the edifice of civilization, as it exists. We all can agree that civilization, generally described, is an invention and ruled by convention and based upon that which we call "time." Given our relationship with and to 'Time', if I were to ask, what is the nature of time?, I would not be asking a philosophical question and my answer would be, it is the handmaiden of Matter.

If you want an answer, then I will give it: 3 semesters Calculus, 1 Differential Equations, 2 Semesters Probability & Statistics, Numerical Analysis, 2 semester of Abstract Algebra (Group Theory). There are others, which I can't remember (early 80s), I should go find those, so I know for such questions. I entered the workforce as a computer programmer and did that for, total, 10 years. My degree is a hybrid because my college did not--at that time--have a proper Computer Science major; mine is a B.A. is Computer Mathematics--but, as we all know, there is no software-dedicated mathematics. I will go look for your "previous question." Thanks. I don't understand this question. Oh I see, Are you aware that I have had multiple warnings for not replying under some undisclosed time-frame? Therefore, I don't give a bleep about waiting for you. I'm inches from being banned. You showed no sign of getting to what i posted.

Yes, I made that mistake--I consider them the same for some reason; I should know better. In WordPress and DISQUS, the <> tags are used but the function is the same, and I know this site is bbcode. At any rate, I've been attempting to use the "quote" bbcode with results, witness the posts with "code" blocks containing paragraphs. Thanks for your help! Please feel free to change "HTML" in my title to bbcode, thanks.

Zero is NOT a value. 10 is a value. Zero is a number without a value. This is what I mean and nothing more. Infinity is NOT a value. I have taken a great deal of math at college, years ago. I know how infinity is treated in mathematics.

It is exactly the reason one can't divide by zero. Are you using some personal definitions of "off" "topic" and "here"? The illustration of inability to divide by zero is made by watching the value of a fraction when it's denominator decreases repeatedly. 3/1 = 3 3/.5 = 6 3/.25 = 12 3/.1 = 30 3/.01 = 300 One could reduce the denominator forever, approaching zero but never reaching zero. Putting the numbers to a graph X,Y the axis would extend forever and the graph can't be completed....which brings us to the "concept" of infinite distance, but we are discussing mathematical (numerical) infinity.

I provide an answer just prior to your post. And I don't believe that you don't know what it is about.

I recommend the book The Perfect Theory by Pedro G. Ferreira. It gives a history of General Relativity. I placed it within the "Relativity" section as it is a thread about the nature of 'Time'. Of course, we approach the subject from our observations of the subject. Time, as it exists and our interpretations of our myriad observations, scientific and personal, have been and will remain the subject of physicists, I suspect, forever. I don't see any progress or change in the conception of 'Time' as it has always been understood for hundreds of years. The mechanical clock mocks perpetual motion--when it is wound properly--to serve a purpose. The "atomic" clock employs another physical process--to serve a purpose. This is the purpose of this thread.

Thank you for not wasting any more of my time. I will take your advice with respect to communication.

You have assumed correctly.

1.Try this: We can dispense with that conception of 'Time' which we have built an entire civilization upon, that is, our relationship to that construction. This thread is not about that aspect of 'Time' which I call the Edifice of Civilization. (The construction is comprised of: second, minute, hour, day, month, year, bus, train and plane schedules, play dates, and so on.) Therefore, the trailing clause of that sentence applies. 2. Please see the parenthetical in 1. (I can't believe you typed #2, it having the odor of "number 2", notwithstanding.) 3. I mention it to dispense with it in the beginning of the thread instead of dealing with it throughout the thread. 4. As stated explicitly, perhaps, exquisitely in the OP (Me): What is the basis for any expression of duration? My question requires one to know the nature of 'time'. I am using the word "nature" as it is being employed by Einstein in the essay. I am using "duration" as equivalent to "elapsed time".

Do you want to reconsider the text I highlighted in red? I will inform you in advance--for your information and nothing more--that your reply to this question will determine whether you will be added to my ignore list. Do you understand the question? I answered the question in 5 words yesterday Can anyone tell me the connection between the nature of time and division by zero?

I answered the question in 5 words yesterday

I do believe that your sentences indicate that you should have typed, "yes". No? Yes. I ask you this simple question: On what basis would you entertain the scenario of 'Time' without matter in motion? Please note that I didn't end that sentence after the word "matter."

The phrase "rate of time" caught my eye. Do you think that the thing you placed within quotes, "reality", is equivalent to "rate of time?" I started a thread about the nature of time and it hasn't been locked yet...I should check again soon. What I know is that it, 'Time', our observation and resultant conception of 'Time', is inextricably linked to matter, that every expression of it is linked to some physical process. No? Yes.

I don't understand the reason you proceed after the point at which I cut-off your If/Then: Infinity is not a value, therefore it can not "=" anything. I left out the part where zero is not a value.

Thanks. If you look at my recent new thread, it is a victim of not being able to use the quote tag fully--I was forced to place the quoted text within the "code" feature. Further, there is no "preview" function to ....preview what I'm attempting to format.

I don't have a source button on top left.

We can dispense with that conception of 'Time' which we have built an entire civilization upon, our relationship to that construction. This thread is not about that subject. I do not know the exact date of this essay from which I provide an excerpt below. Albert Einstein was asked to "write something for The Times on relativity." The title is: What Is The Theory of Relativity? From the book Essays in Science, published 1934, by Albert Einstein, page 53-54: We can distinguish various kinds of theories in physics. Most of them are constructive. They attempt to build up a picture of the more complex phenomena out of the materials of a relatively simple formal scheme which they start out. Thus the kinetic theory of gases seeks to reduce mechanical, thermal and diffusional process to movements of molecules--i.e., to build them up out of the hypothesis of molecular motion. When we say that we have succeeded in understanding a group of natural processes, we invariably mean that a constructive theory has been found which covers the processes in question. Along with this most important class of theories there exists a second, which I will call "principle-theories." These employ the analytic, not the synthetic method. The elements which form their basis and starting-point are not hypothetically constructed but empirically discovered ones, general characteristics of natural processes, principles that give rise to mathematically formulated criteria which the separate processes or the theoretical representations of them have to satisfy. Thus the science of thermodynamics seeks by analytical means to deduce necessary connections, which separate events have to satisfy, from the universally experienced fact that perpetual motion is impossible. The Advantages of the constructive theory are completeness, adaptability and clearness, those of the principle theory are logical perfection and security of the foundations. The theory of relativity belongs to the latter class. In order to grasp its nature, ...[STOP] From this post of the locked thread: . I am using the word "nature" as it is being employed by Einstein in the essay. From this post in the locked thread: I am using "duration" as equivalent to "elapsed time".

Infinity is not a value.

I will answer the question tonight. Thank you.