Eric 5

Originally Posted by Eric 5 Alright, So numbers, measurement, length, width, height, dimensions, miles, feet, kilometers, are things that existed with out man, like some kind of naturally occurring thing. You can get the idea of measuring a triceratops now that we have the concept of measurement, but back before man, who was assigning length to things? A triceratops was a physical thing that existed without the need to be a certain length. All I was saying was that the triceratops was a physical thing that was a certain size. The numbers or significance assigned to the size of the object could only exist after man come up with the concept. The triceratops was not required to be a certain length in order to be a triceratops, it was the size that it was and man then assigned it a specific length. But the point I wanted to understand was if you thought that length was a physical thing. You have stated that no, you do not consider length to be a physical thing. I agree. Is the distance a physical thing? You say no. I agree. Can you measure the distance a satellite travels? You say yes. I agree. Is the distance a physical thing? You say no. I agree. I do not know how we got to this point, sometimes when communicating on a thread at sporadic times it is hard to keep a train of thought, I agree with what you said so I will leave it at that. I think that this length thing got stated when you said in post #59: I might have misread that to mean you were saying the distance was a physical thing, when you were saying the moon was a physical thing. Right? Anyway, there were some other things that you stated earlier that go back to our discussion of the existence of time, I would also like to see if I am understanding you right. You said in post #59: When you say existed I think that you mean that time was a thing that physically existed. I gather this is what you mean because before man thought about the concept of time and gave the concept an existance in his mind. Time would have to be something that existed as something that was outside and independent of man, it existed as something without the need for man to recognize it or give it existance. I know that we have been down this road before about does time exist as a physical object or a concept, and you said that these two choices are not the only way for something to exist. Quote post #59. So this post right now I think can get to the heart of the matter regarding the nature of time for both of us. You say time already existed and I assume that by this you mean that it exists in the world outside of mans mind. I assume this because I have come to the conclusion that in order for anything to exist it has to physically exist or exist as a thought or concept. You say that there are other possible descriptions. I would be interested in what you have to say about this, what other possibilities are there, maybe I have overlooked a possibility. Thank You. Eric 5 I will fill you in on what my understanding of what it means for something to exist. I have come to the conclusion that anything that is said to exist either exists as a physical thing or as a concept or idea. I have been told that applying this idea to certain things is a false dichotomy, because there are other possibilities. I do not know of any other possibilities at this time so when I ask you the following questions you will know where I am coming from. You say that dimensions, length, width, height existed before man. So, from this I would conclude that these things are not concepts but things that physically existed before man. These things already existed as a physical thing and then man gave it a name. You have to understand that if you were to take a rectangular brick and lay it on its side and I was to ask you what the height of that brick is you would measure from the top of the brick to the bottom, that would be the height of the brick in that position. Now if I was to stand the brick up so that it is now taller than before and again ask you to measure that height of the brick, you again would measure from top to bottom and get its height for that position. So you see, the way I look at this is all measurements are concepts. When you measure something you are not measuring a thing called length, width, height, you are measuring an object and then deciding what that measurement will signify. The measurement of the height for something is based on how the object is perceived and oriented to the observer. Up and down are not real physical things, they are concepts, just like the up/down measurement of an object to get its height. The object is physical, that is what a length, width, height is applied to by man. Those measurements are pure significance, they have a meaning and no mass, no physical substance. So when you say that these things existed before man I would like to get a better understanding of what you mean existed. I will make a very simple example of what I understand you to mean about the existance of time. A rock is something that we can agree is a physical object and existed before man. Right? Remember, man made concepts could not exist before man, so for something to exist before man it is not going to be a concept. Agreed? So from my understanding you are saying that time existed before man, and I would have to conclude that you mean it existed as more than a mere concept, since I have come to the understanding that there are only two ways for something to exist, either as a physical thing or as a concept I would conclude that you mean that time is a physical thing. Now of course if you have another possibility please let me know, I am just going off what I have concluded about the existance of things in the world around me. So if I was to replace time with rock in in your example it would read like this: Man created the concept of a rock, not (the) rock. There was a rock even when man wasn't there, and all that man did is give it a name, concept, ROCK. Put like this I would agree. The physical rock existed before man, man encountered this thing and gave it a label so as to identify it from other things. My problem comes about when you try to describe time this way, because in order for it to follow the same logic for time as it does for other physical things time would have to be a physical thing with some kind of atomic structure. For time to exist, (as far as I am concerned) it either exists as a physical thing or as a concept. But this is just my observation, you might have another way in which something can exist for man. You made a good point and I can see where you are trying to go with this, I would just like a little more clarification from you on what you think the nature of time is. Thank You. Eric 5

O.K. Lets get to the basics here. Do objects physically exist? I say yes. If you say yes, then do these objects occupy a location in space? I say yes. If you say yes, then can there be objects that exist in a location without ever being observed? I say yes. What say you?

Originally Posted by Eric 5 Is this whole thing a concept and not a physical reality? Alright, so you believe that length contraction is a physical reality. Right? After reading my post that you were answering, can you give some explaination on how objects will physically contract to fit the frame of reference of the observer? After reading my whole post, the only comment that you can make is that you do not agree that length contraction is a concept. Is that the only point that you disagree with about my post? Can I assume that you only find a disagreement in the first sentence of my post and the rest you agree with. You really did not say much. Did you read the whole post?

Is this whole thing a concept and not a physical reality? You see if length contraction were a physical occurrence then you would have to state that I do not understand the physics behind this occurrence not the concept. An object exist physically right? An object has an atomic structure. That atomic structure is already in existence before that object is observed. There are objects existing right now that are unseen that exist and take up space and have a location. No two objects can occupy the same space at the same time. This means that an object has a certain size that prevents other object from occupying its space, so objects do have an influence on other objects in that all objects have an inherent area of occupation by that object. If these objects are never observed they still remain as a physical object with a specific size that influence other objects. So objects are a certain size regardless of if they are observed or not, Right? We can see an object so it physically exists. Are you going to tell me that an object only exists because it is being observed? That is basically what you are saying, an object does not have a size until it is observed. Than the observer is responsible for the objects physical size. Are you suggesting that all of the fossils that have a certain size did not gain that size until they were observed? There are objects that left impressions of what size they were without ever being observed. These objects had a physical size, so yes objects do have an inherent size. You will have to believe that physical objects have zero size until they are observed. Where is the science behind the idea that mere reflection of light from an object can physically change the shape of an object to fit the frame of reference of the observer. You have to understand that you are putting the effect before the cause. The physical size of the object was undetermined until it was observed, and that observation of the object is the observation of the light reflected off that object. So in essence that object had to know in advance what size to be in accordance to your frame of reference, before the light that you see being reflected off that object reaches your eyes. The size of object is being effected by your frame of reference before you actually recieve the reflected light from that object. the object has to know in advance what size to be before the light that is going to be reflected off of it to your frame of reference. The object was the appropriate size to your frame of reference BEFORE the light that was reflected off of it to you. Do you really think that your observation of an object physically determines its size?

No, I was referring to that site to support your idea of an atom. I went to that site and got the understanding of what you were trying to tell me.

If there are three observers in three different frames of reference observing the same physical object, they will observe that object being at a different length than the other frames of reference. That object is a physical thing. That object is at the effect of the laws of nature. If that object is going to change shape then there are physical forces at work. So if three different observers in three different frames of reference observe the physical object at different lengths from the other frames of reference then are you going to say that the physical object is three different physical sizes at the same time? It does not matter if the observers disagree on the measurement. The object is the size that it is without any regard to what some observer thinks its size is. The object has a size before it is observed. Are you suggesting that objects are deciding what size to be by what frame of reference they are being observed from? Do you realize that by saying that objects are what size they are after being observed is saying that the objects physical size is effected by observation, and that object has to know what frame of reference that the observer is occupying in order to be the size that is appropriate to that frame of reference. In order to observe anything you have to receive light from that object. So, if the object is physically smaller when light was reflected off it, that object has to know in advance what size to be. Or you could just say that the object APPEARS to be smaller, but in actuality it is not physically contracted. So you see the question is; Does the object really contract or does it appear to contract. What do you think?

O.K. What other kind of discription is there? Alright, So numbers, measurement, length, width, height, dimensions, miles, feet, kilometers, are things that existed with out man, like some kind of naturally occurring thing. You can get the idea of measuring a triceratops now that we have the concept of measurement, but back before man, who was assigning length to things? A triceratops was a physical thing that existed without the need to be a certain length. What dimension? Are you implying that a dimension is a thing? Here we go again. I will have to ask you, if time existed without man,than man had no involvement in its existance. So that would mean that time is not a man made concept. So you know what I am going to say next right? You say that there is other ways in which something can exist other than being a physical thing or a concept, this would be a good time to say what other way that you think there is. WHAT? Is there a difference between a physical thing and an object? Here (the Earth) is a physical thing. The Moon is a physical thing. So now you are saying that the measurment is a physical thing. Physical in what way? Physical? Are you sure? Do you really mean to say that a measurement is an object? Object 1. anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form. 2. a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed: an object of medical investigation. 3. the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose: Profit is the object of business. 4. a person or thing with reference to the impression made on the mind or the feeling or emotion elicited in an observer: an object of curiosity and pity. Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing. A focus of attention, feeling, thought, or action: an object of contempt. The purpose, aim, or goal of a specific action or effort: the object of the game. Philosophy: Something intelligible or perceptible by the mind. Computer Science: A discrete item that can be selected and maneuvered, such as an onscreen graphic. In object-oriented programming, objects include data and the procedures necessary to operate on that data Physical 1. involving the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit; "physical exercise"; "physical suffering"; "was sloppy about everything but her physical appearance" [ant: mental] 2. relating to the sciences dealing with matter and energy; especially physics; "physical sciences"; "physical laws" 3. having substance or material existence; perceptible to the senses; "a physical manifestation"; "surrounded by tangible objects" 4. according with material things or natural laws (other than those peculiar to living matter); "a reflex response to physical stimuli" 5. characterized by energetic bodily activity; "a very physical dance performance" 6. impelled by physical force especially against resistance; "forcible entry"; "a real cop would get physical"; "strong-arm tactics" [syn: forcible] 7. concerned with material things; "physical properties"; "the physical characteristics of the earth"; "the physical size of a computer" Measurement the act or process of assigning numbers to phenomena according to a rule; "the measurements were carefully done"; "his mental measurings proved remarkably accurate" A method of determining quantity, capacity, or dimension. Several systems of measurement exist, each one comprising units whose amounts have been arbitrarily set and agreed upon by specific groups. While the United States Customary System remains the most commonly used system of measurement in the United States, the International System is accepted all over the world as the standard system for use in science. Do not see a definition of measurement that states it is a physical thing. There is already a thread discussing time potentials here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/s...ad.php?t=32384 But I would like to hear from you on what your ideas are on what time is. I have posed the question of "Is time a physical thing or a consideration" I say that time is a consideration. You do not have to choose between physical or consideration, some have said that this is a false dichotomy. So just say what you want, I would like to see what you can add to this discussion. Thank You Eric 5

O.K. Klaynos, We can both agree that time is something that is real to us. So time would have to exist in some way for us. Forget about my either or choice, I am sure that you have some idea of how time exist or is real to you, so I would be interested in hearing from you what you think time is. Thank You. Eric 5 As far as your comparison between time and energy, these two topics are different. Describing energy will not get us any closer to what time is, they are two different things. I have raised the question about the nature of time because you have said that clocks measure time. Since I never really asked you what you meant by that, I will ask you now. In what way do you think a clock measures time? Length is a measurement. A measurement is part of a man made system developed so that man could quantify the dimensions of an object, or the distance between objects. Before man there was no units of length. Before man there was no concept of measurement or length. Man gives specific lengths to objects. Objects exist as they are, man gave them length. Length is not a naturally occurring ingredient that is part of an object. When you say that length is a property of an object, that property was assigned to that object by man, length is not intrinsic to that object. An object will exist whether it was measured or not. Remember, the only way an object can receive a length is after it was measured by man. Length is part of agreed upon system of measurements and did not exist before man. One inch, one foot, seven miles, those are not things that exist in a physical form, they are concepts. The idea of how long something is. Man thought of measurement and then measurements existed. Length started out as a concept and has been thoroughly communicated so as to become an agreed upon idea. Time is just another measurement based on an idea. Man decided what a second of time is. All measurements of time did not exist before man. Now we can measure physical objects and the distance between objects, so the measurement of length is applied to physical things. Physical objects exist, and man can measure these things. The objects are physical, the measurement is a concept. The measuring device is physical, the object that it measures is physical. So, when you say a clock (a physical device) measures time, what do you mean? What is being measured?

Originally Posted by Eric 5 If physical matter really does contract, then physical forces are at work. A physical force would act on this matter to make it shorter, and a physical force would have to bring it back to its original shape Do you think that physical objects physically contract during this phenomenon? All objects have a size and shape whether they are observed or not, agree? Do you think that just by observing an object, that object will change length? You say that length contraction means different observers find lenghts to be different. What makes the length of the object different for each observer? I am interested in finding out more on this subject. Thank You. Eric 5

Swansont. Do you want to continue this discussion on time here? Or do you want to move it to the thread Defining TIme in the general physics section? I would like to respond to your most recent post, but do not want to have a discussion on time in two different threads.

Originally Posted by Eric 5 Oscillation by definition is a motion. If someone uses the term oscillation then they are going to use how that term is defined. The links that swansont provided on atomic clocks all say that the clocks measure motion of an object. Swansont and you can explain all you want about how an oscillation is not a motion, but that would be contrary to the standard physics definition of oscillation. Explain all you want, I know what the definition of an oscillation is, do you? In physics frequency is defined as a number of periodic oscillations, vibrations, or waves occurring per unit of time. My point is that atomic clocks measure motion. They have been built to translate a frequency, a certain number of vibrations, or oscillations to a number that is defined as a second. This is what I been saying about clocks, they measure motion and not a thing called time. Clocks convert motion to a specific number. That number is predetermined by man. I stand corrected, on my explaination. The latest explaination of the atom still states that there is motion in the atom. A wave. Even though my example is outdated, my point was that atoms have motion. For those of you interested in the explaination of what an atom looks like or how it operates, here are some web sites. http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PETROLGY/WhatAtomsLookLike.HTM http://science.howstuffworks.com/atom8.htm Eric 5 A frequency is energy in motion. There is motion that is being detected by the atomic clock. Originally Posted by Eric 5 I have not called time a physical thing, you say that clocks measure this thing called time. My question to you has been, what is this thing that clocks are measuring? In order for a physical object like a clock to measure some outside influence that you want to call time, this time thing would have to be a physical thing. No, I am not saying time is a physical thing. You stated in post #61 of this thread that "time is what is measured by a clock" So in order for a mechanical device to measure something, that something has to be in some form either as matter or energy. For a clock to actually measure a thing, that thing would have to have the capacity to do work. For example, if readings on a clock are due to the measurement of this thing called time, then this time thing would need to have the ability to motivate the clock. Time would have to exist as something that has the capacity to do work. That is what I am saying. I think that you are asking this question because I was asking you if time was a physical thing or a conception, and you wanted to show me that somethings are hard to pin down when it comes to a choice between physical or concept. Right? Well, anyway, Energy and time are two different things. No matter what definition I gave for energy it would still not address the topic of time. We both know that time and energy exist, but my question has been in what way does time exist. You say that clocks measure time, so I would have to assume that you think that this thing called time exists in some way as to have the ability to motivate a mechanical device. This would require time to be some form of energy, but time is not defined as energy. We both know that time is not a form of energy. Just to satisfy your question about energy, I will say that energy is a potential of motion or power. It would be a force or flow or the potential force or flow from something to something; or the ability to accomplish work;or the ability to make motion or movement. It is a potential or actual motion or force. Energy is not a thing that exists as an independent physical object or form. It does not have an atomic structure, it would be the motions or potential motions that are derived from those things with an atomic structure. Forms and objects can posses energy. Energy is a capacity to do work and can be harnessed by man. Energy unlike time is something that exists without having to be measured. Energy can be percieved through our senses. Time does not have a capacity to do work. I would like to continue on , but this is getting off topic. There is already a thread dedicated to defining time and now I am getting into energy on this thread. I hope that this answered your question about energy. Eric 5

The material objects do not actually contract. Notice that the cars do not actually get smaller. No car is shown to get smaller. You do see that right? It is all based on how the objects are measured and not the measurement of a object that got smaller. Nothing gets smaller as it is moving, look again if you dont believe me. Right! the animation explains how lenght contraction works. It also shows you that nothing gets smaller as it moves. It was explained simply and you can see nothing gets smaller as it moves. What do your eyes tell you? Nothing gets smaller that is my viewpoint. With all the explaination and visuals on the web site that supports my statement and you trying to deny this fact makes me think that either you do not want to accept the facts or you are just trying to be funny and push my buttons. Right! the ruler does not go from one longer lenght to a smaller length while it is in motion. Matter does not experience a lenght contraction. Matter will not and has not been shown to get shorter due to the lenght contraction phenomenon. The math for this does not involve any force on the matter in motion. If a material object is made to get shorter there has to be a force applied to that object. This is a physics forum, you should be familar with basic physics. There is no mention or explaination of force being applied to an object to make it contract, and you want me to accept the idea that it just happens. Why are you accepting this as an actual physical contraction of matter when you see no evidence of this occuring? This does not show how matter will physical change shape, force has to be applied to this matter, yet no mathmatical or visual evidence of this. Matter will not physically change shape, you can see this. There is no mathmatical, visual,or physical evidence that proves that matter physically changes shape due to lenght dilation.

I am saying that matter does not actually get smaller or contract, it only looks that way in the way the measurements are done.

Very nice post. You have helped me see where the point of frustration on this topic is. I will try and clear up any confusion. I did not intend to ask a trick question. The question might have been too blunt and straight forward without an explanation on why I decided to ask the question the way I did. I will give you my reasoning behind asking if time is a physical thing or a consideration. The way I see it. Everything that we humans perceive and experience are considered real to us. These things exist as a real things to us. There are two ways things can be real or exist for us. One way is all of those things that are real in the sense that they exist in our environment and can be perceived with our senses, and are made of energy or condensed energy such as matter. These are the things that we consider to be real or exist because we can perceive these things with our bodies senses. Also these physical things can be agreed to be real or exist due to the fact that other people can perceive the same thing we perceive. A very simple example would be a rock. As an individual we can see the rock, feel it, move it around, hear it make contact with other real things, and we can show it to someone else and they to will agree that this object is real and exists. So this is one way we consider something to be real and exist. The physical world, those things that are made of energy in any form that exist outside of our mind and are not something we just thought up. The other way we consider something to be real to us is those things that we perceive in our mind. Dreams, thoughts, ideas, emotions, imagine, and such. These things are real to us on an individual level and do not exist in the world outside of our mind. No one else can perceive these things unless we communicate these things to another person. So those things that we create or think about in our minds are very real to us and do exist, but they are real and exist differently than those things that are around us in this universe for all to see. So, my original question of, is time a physical thing or a consideration? Could be changed to a question like, Does time exist as a thing (some form of energy) in the world around us that can be perceived by our senses, or does time exist as an idea or concept based on the motion of objects in the world around us. We can all agree that time exists, but we only have two choices in how it can exist for us. Is time a physical thing that exists as something in the world around us, or is time a concept and only exists because we consider time to exist. Do you see where I am coming from? We all agree that time is real to us, but the question is, in what form or way does time exist for us? I hope this clears things up. That is alright, I know how to measure time. I don’t recall exactly what your definitions of time were, but I think you might have gotten the impression that I was ignoring your definitions because they did not say if time was a thing that existed physically or not. But I hope that my above explanation will get this discussion off to a better start. If you you are saying that time is part of metaphysics, belongs in the field of phylosophy, than I would say that you have in a way answered the question of what is time. Metaphysics and physics deal with two different aspects of the world aound us. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that seeks to explain the nature of reality and is interested in the study of the nature of knowledge. Physics is a branch of science that deals with the properties, changes, interactions and such of matter and energy. So you see, by saying that the nature of time belongs in the metaphysical you are saying that it does not belong in physics, and so for you time is more of question of how you think it is real. If you said the nature of time belonged in the field of physics than that would mean that you thought time was more part of matter and energy and not some idea of time. Is this what you have been trying to say? Time is real and exists for us as more of a way of how we think it exist and is not a thing that is made of matter or energy that most definatley exists in the world around us as a physical thing? Please correct me if this is not what you intended to say. Look, in light of my above explaination you can restate this, you see we all agree that time exists for us, so it cannot be neither. Time either exists as a physical thing or as an idea or concept. If it was neither we would not even know about it and would not talk about it, put it in our dictionaries, give it a definition, have threads dedicated to discussing it, it would not be used in literature or language. Do you see how absurd it would be to say that time is neither a consideration or physical? Time is real to us in some way and exists for us in some way. From your post I thought of another way in which I could ask about the nature of time. Does time belong in the field of metaphysics or physics. You see that it is still asking if time is a physical thing or a concept. Thank You. Eric 5

Off topic. Has nothing to do with defining time. I am not married. I have asked you an easy question. I was able to answer the question. There is nothing false about my division of the subject of time into two sharply different parts. Your profile says that you have a PhD in atomic physics, and your blog says you build atomic clocks. You should be an expert on the topic of time. Why the protest and saying that it is not an easy question. You have been taught about the subject of time, just use some of the knowledge. You have an idea of what time is so just say what it is. If you find my question so difficult then forget about it for right now. This thread is about defining time, so just contribute to the thread and give your opinion on what time is. Just relax and just share some of your knowledge of time, I was able to state my opinion on time I am sure you can too. Don't worry about my question right now, I would like to hear what a person with a PhD in physics has to say about time. Just feel free to communicate, this is just a discussion and not a contest on who can be right. O.K. Look, I am willing to talk about energy all that you want, but this is a discussion on time. My answer to what I think energy is should have no bearing on what you think time is. Two different topics. Please do not get so serious about this. We all have our own idea of what time is, this thread is just a place for people to voice their ideas and concepts on time. Ideally the end result would be a better understanding of what time is for everyone involved. I am sure that with your background you would have much to say on this topic, so please share. One last thing. I have not been avoiding your question on energy, just want to stay on topic. O.K. It would be nice to hear from you on this topic of time. I would even like to hear about what you do in regards to the building of atomic clocks, sounds interesting. Thank You. Eric 5 So what is your idea of time? I have answered what I thought time is, how about you?

iNOW, in this thread i have asked if you think time is a man-made consideration or some naturally occuring thing that exists in some physical form. You have not responded to this easy question. I have asked thedarkshade if time is a material thing or a concept. No definative response. I have asked D.H. if time is a physical thing or a concept. No definative response. I am sure that all of you can answer this question. You all have an idea of what time is. I will get the whole thing started by saying that time is not a physical thing according to scientific references and observations. Time is a consideration. See it is not that hard to do. Just state your opinion and show me that I am wrong. This is your oppurtunity to put me in my place. You sound like you are a bit angry, use that energy to prove me wrong. Show everyone that I am wrong. Are you up to it or are you just going to continue to avoid the question? It is really easy to do. Time is either a physical thing or a consideration. Eric 5

There is the definition of space in a physics dictionary. There is space between your hand and face, and there is space between the Earth and moon. Your hand and face are physical objects, The Earth and moon are physical objects. Space is that nothingness between objects, any object whether it be matter or energy. There is a definition of space with no qualifiers that say outer space is a different type of space. Space is space. There are not different types of space. Tell me how outer space is different than space in general. Is this distance a physical thing? I say that both time and space are considerations of man and are not physical things that exist. This statement that you gave does not define either time or space. Both depend on the other for existance. Define time or space. In what way does either time or space exist? So just tell me, do you think space is a physical thing or a consideration. Please make this easy for anyone who might be new to this thread and just put your definition of time here so that we can all follow what you are trying to say. My dislike for swansonts definition of time should have no bearing on your actions. I have stated my definition of time numerous times despite others objections. Here it is again: "Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. There is a distance, there is a velocity of the objects travel, and that movement of that object or particle in relationship to its starting point and in relationship to its ending point is what gives us the idea of time. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time. Take a look at a clock or any of the devices constructed by man to measure time. Are these devices actually measuring a force or thing called time? If you believe that clocks or any such device measures time then ask yourself, how does this measurement occur. If you were to take the batteries out of a clock it will no longer work and therefore no longer “measure” time. Clocks are man made devices that are made to move according to a pre-engineered construction. Man decides how a clock will move, not time." Just put your definition of time here so we all have a reference to what information you are operating from. Thank You. Eric 5 Quantities of what? Make this simple. Is time or space a physical thing or a consideration? Just make that statement and then we can go from there. I will state that both time and space are not physical things according to scientific references and observations. Right! Time and space are measurements, not physical things. According to what you stated time and space are not either a form of matter or energy. You can make this easy by just stating what you think. Do you think time and space are physical things or considerations? Easy as that. Thank You for your input and cooperation. Eric 5

How do you define space? What is your reference? Use that reference or observation to describe space. There are physics dictionaries, use them.

O.K. So there is air between my face and my hand. The air is real. So what else exists there? If you want to say that space is a real thing that is existing between my hand and my face, then this real thing has a location and can be located and therefore exists in a location. It would have physical properties of those things that can be located. So, again as with time. Tell me what this thing is made of that gives it the properties of being able to exist in a location. You tell me, besides the air between your hand and face, what other thing do you percieve? The term space is used to describe that area of nothing between objects. That area between you and what you are observing, that is space. Space is caused by looking out from a point. The concept of space comes about from the idea that one perceives through something when looking out from our point of view. There are objects that exist other than where we are viewing from, and by looking out to these items we create the idea of space. If space were a real physical thing don’t you think that reference books would state that space is a real thing. If space were a real physical thing it would have to exist in a location in space, that would not be logical. Again, to avoid any misunderstanding, please state if you think space exists as a physical thing or a concept. Thank You. Eric 5 Of course you would not have a problem with YOUR definition of time. But just to be fair, please state what your definition of time is. We have been corresponding on this topic for a while now and I do not recall what your definition of time is. Thank You. Eric 5

These candidates would have to have some firm grasp on the basics in order to get a PhD. They understand the basics of physics (time being one of the basics), and this understanding can be found in any physics reference book. Science prides itself on knowing exactly what is going on in the universe, and science does not have a problem with its definition of time. There is no public outcry from the science community that the definition of time is wrong or incomplete. Just so I know what your view is on this, please state if you think that time is a physical thing or a concept. This will avoid any misunderstandings. Thank You. Eric 5

Good. So you say that time is something that exists. So my question would be, exists in what way and where? Here are some definitions of exist, of course if you want to use different definitions of exist feel free to. EXIST----- to have actual being; be: to have life or animation; live. to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: Exist--- 1. To be as a fact and not as a mode; to have an actual or real being, whether material or spiritual. 2. To be manifest in any manner; to continue to be; as, great evils existed in his reign . 3. To live; to have life or the functions of vitality; as, men can not exist water, nor fishes on land. So in what way are you saying time exists? For time to exist it has to exist as something that is material or conceptual. Tell me in what way do you think time exists. In order for the whole world to have some idea of time it has to manifest itself in some way that is universal. Break it down, is time a material thing or a concept? You say it exists, so in what way? Material/concept? It is as easy as that.

What are you saying? Do you think the field of physics completely understands time or not?

Very nice. So lets get this straight, do you think that time is a man made consideration or some naturally occurring thing that exists in some physical form?

Are you suggesting that the field of physics does not understand what time is? Are you going to suggest that no one in physics understands what time is. The idea of time is part of the foundation of physics and you think that time is not understood. Physics does understand time and physics does have an exact definition of time. The problem is that some people want time to be more then it is, so they will say that time is not understood or that it is some mysterious thing. The definition of time is all that there is. Physics has defined time and there has been no protest from the physics community, so it is an agreed upon definition of time. It has been suggested that time is a physical thing that clocks measure, or time was created at the Big Bang, or time is part of this thing called the fabric of space-time, or that time is a dimension. All of this depends on time being some physical thing with a structure or energy, yet there is no reference or observation to back this up. Nowhere in standard physics is it stated that time is a thing. I have been saying this for a while now and some say that I am wrong, time is a thing. Well I have been asking for that proof and have not been presented with any evidence. My claim that time is not a physical thing can be backed up with any reference book, dictionary or observation. Those who think I am wrong should be able to simply and easily prove me wrong, but this is not the case. If someone thinks time is a thing than prove it with some evidence. If it is a thing then I am sure someone can show evidence of this. Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. There is a distance, there is a velocity of the objects travel, and that movement of that object or particle in relationship to its starting point and in relationship to its ending point is what gives us the idea of time. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time. Take a look at a clock or any of the devices constructed by man to measure time. Are these devices actually measuring a force or thing called time? If you believe that clocks or any such device measures time then ask yourself, how does this measurement occur. If you were to take the batteries out of a clock it will no longer work and therefore no longer “measure” time. Clocks are man made devices that are made to move according to a pre-engineered construction. Man decides how a clock will move, not time.

Still no answer from you on the scientific definition of time. Use any definition or reference that you want to explain that time is a physical thing. All you can do is protest my request for a physics definition of time that states it is more then a mere measurement of motion. Use your technical sources. Give the definition of time that is used in science. You are avoiding the request. Just give or link to some source that states the physics definition of time that supports your view that time is more than a measurement of motion. Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. There is a distance, there is a velocity of the objects travel, and that movement of that object or particle in relationship to its starting point and in relationship to its ending point is what gives us the idea of time. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time. Can you provide a physics definition that refutes or invalidates this definition of time?