Allan Zade

It looks like nobody is able to say anything after that publication. Whole world is changed forever with one straight impact.

Well colleagues! I think it’s the best time to continue our discussion. There is one more publication now that has business with the best question in the world about the nature of Time. You can see it right here: http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-1012.php?rp=P10285 It’s the finish line in a very long discussion of an intriguing question. Humankind “was born” with that question and now we have answer on it! Enjoy! Obviously we can discuss a double device experiment here!

May be there is something more beyond usual meaning of the words? That thing can be responsible for universal meaning of each spoken word and each written symbol at each language.

That is correct finally. In other words each process can be used to measure so-called "time". If we have recurrent process i.e. rotation or oscillation we can use it as a mechanism of a clock. Adding counting device to that mechanism we have a clock. As a result we are free to use any recurrent process to build a clock. Hence we have countless number of clocks with different oscillators and counting mechanisms. But all of them used initial procedure of setting initial indication. As a result all clocks shows their noon at celestial noon i.e. at the moment of time when the Sun crosses celestial meridian (I disregard time zones here because it is artificial thing). That is usual method of synchronization of all clocks and setting their indications to the same according to mutual location of the celestial bodies (the Earth and the Sun). As a result the clocks need human activity to keep "correct" indication. Without that activity any clock keeps counting of inner process of oscillation disregarding operation of other clocks (and phase of the Earth). Hence each clock keeps its own "time" and its own indication without human activity. That is something that they usually recognize as "man made construction" and that is "physical" time (as indication of a clocks). From the other hand humankind has idea of "time" as abstract construction. That "time" has not any spatial dimension as uses a lot of other descriptions to support idea of "time". That is human idea of so-called "time". As an idea it is involved to so many descriptions and sophistic speculations. More other they use usually "physical" time as support for idea of "time" trying to support that idea with a hand-made oscillation counting device. That way ever fails because human mind is unable to control physical processes including process of oscillations. As a result artificial constriction in human mind stays ever against other artificial construction. That situation refuses any solution and breaks any attempt to reach right understanding of anything that has relation to process of oscillations.

Very well, now I can see you point of view on the matter of time. It looks like final decision about nature of time. As 'Daedalus' said us Your point of view can be applicable to the imagination of the atomic clock staff because you obviously need to have some point of view that is applicable to that type of clock and the way of its operation. As a result you disregard any other definition of time because from your point of view there is the only one way for time measurement i.e. your atomic clock. For example: But that is irrelevant to the topic of this discussion. We discuss here matter of time, mathematics and their relation to each other. We discuss NOT a way that your atomic clock makes its operation! From my point of view a moderator need not to suppress discussion with something that has relation to a practical application of discussing matter because our discussion goes not out of the logical frame of science. Well, going back to nature of time we have following. Obviously you need to make some calculation for that. And right calculation must use famous equation: S=V*T. As a result multiplication of known velocity (V) and measured Period of time (T)(not clock itself) gives you length (S) that was covered by a thing going forward with a known velocity. In that case after mathematical calculation you have dimension of a quantity as meter. That is fundamental unit of length and its comparable property for anything else is length. Hence you can compare two things only by means of same property exactly as I mentioned in my previous post. Length is comparable only to length. That is principle of any measurement. So you cannot make comparison between different properties of anything. Furthermore transformation of equation mentioned above gives us following: T=S/V. That is definition of time (T) regarding length (S) and velocity (V). That is precisely correct mathematically and coincides with your method of length measurement using time (see above). But you refused that definition of time recently: And your answer was that: But, dear swansont I'm telling that again we discuss not the way of operation of your pet atomic clock. The matter of discussion is time itself. And we CAN use different methods to do that measurement. Well, about you atomic clock I can tell you following. That device makes measurement of time interval not time itself as you probably think. To start its operation you need to turn it on and make special procedure of synchronization with any other device that makes time count. That is essential because without that operation your clock indication means nothing. As a result your atomic clock makes measurement of time interval form the moment of synchronization to any other given point of time. It never makes measurement of time itself! Any device that is dedicated to so-called time measurement uses same way of operation. I guess we can go further with other members of that forum in this discussion. Dear colleagues please don't be afraid with conversation between swansont and me. We both very like our area of activity. But we have not same point of view on the matter of time.

That is not quite correct. There are a very little number of people who understand that relation. I can explain that to you. We use a meter stick to make measurement of length. We use it as a unit of length. As a result it's possible to make measurement of dimension or calibrate axe of a spatial dimension using that unit of length. That is possible because both things (dimension and the measuring unit) have same basic property i.e. length. So we use length of a measuring unit (property of the unit) to make measurement of length (same property) of a spatial dimension. As you can see only same properties are comparable. For example we cannot use a unit of mass to make measurement of length because property of mass is incomparable to property of length. In your case you tell me following. You have "dimension of time" and use a process to make measurement of that dimension using a property of that process (phase). As a result we have same situation as I mentioned above (units with incomparable properties). In that case you are trying to make measurement of time dimension using property of a process. Moreover you develop unit of time measurement from property of physical process. In that case you have incomparable properties that cannot be used to any measurement. In other words you need to have unit of time itself to make measurement of time dimension because property of time dimension is incomparable to any other property of any process or object of physical world.

Conjunction between them is not true. You still don't show how those two explanations have relation to each other. So you use two different bases instead of one. As a result following question is still unanswered. What is relation between phase and dimension in your definition of time?

I'm afraid that is incorrect and both of them are untrue. The main matter here is reference between those answers. If we discuss any scientific topic we use some relation between discussing phenomena and some underlying principle. We can do any answer relating to same phenomenon any possible way but all answers must keep same basis. That must be direct or indirect relation to the SAME principle. Answers become irrelevant to the discussing matter without that conjunction. For example if we discuss any matter of visible light we understand that all matter has relation to propagation of the electromagnet waves. In that case all answers use this or that relation to the same underlying principle (propagation of the electromagnet waves). Can you tell me your description or short explanation for any conjunction between your answers and matter of time? If you use same basis you can make conjunction between them. But that is impossible from my point of view.

I guess we are close to the right point of view. From the one hand we have following. From the other hand we have quite different answer. Obviously that is modern point of view on nature of time. But I'd like to see you point of view on that matter. I know definition of time from modern universities. They understand it as the special dimension that is orthogonal to the spatial coordinates, exactly as you say. But that definition is useful only for mathematical calculations and not enough for physics. As you can see from the two quotes mentioned above you have two different answers on the same question. But the grave problem is that your answers are irrelevant to each other and you need to invent new answers again and again when you have each new question about nature of time.

How can it be"the phase of an oscillation" and the fourth dimension of the universe (at the same time)? Moreover what is relation between time flow and the phase of a process? Where is relation between a dimension and the phase of an oscillation? Each recurrent process has its own phase under usual condition at any given point of time. Does it mean that all processes have their own time?

You are very close to the right point of view. Your definition of time is ambiguous indeed because it uses two different notions. First one describes time as a measurable period and next one describes the same thing as a thing that lacks spatial dimension. That leads us to following question. What if there are two types of so-called "time"? One "time""is nothing more than a count of cycles" and next one ("as a thing that lacks spatial dimension") exists only in human mind (as an idea) without any relation to the physical world. Using that point of view we have not any "ambiguous definition" of time. What do you think about that?

Well, I had "yellow card" from the moderator. I'm sorry for violation of some rules of this forum. I got carried away by conversation with the TT and forgot good manners. That is another example of great interest for the topic that we are talking about. Going further I'd like to discuss following. What if I have two closed boxes with a watch in each? Is it possible to say that I have two different "times" or I have the only one time that spreads for two boxes?

That is a very interesting point of view! It refers to the future. But I guess that is not quite correct now. There is my work that was published this year with name "Z-Theory and its Applications" (ISBN: 978-1452018935). That is result of my theoretical research. Primary source for my work is Encyclopedia Britannica (2008). But result of that work goes far away from the usual point of view. It has some relation with quotation that I mentioned above and gives us final answer on question about nature of time. It describes some new aspects of space as well. As a result knowledge of physics in that area extends significantly. As I can see there is nobody else from the members of this forum who has any publication (for the last decade) that covers matter of space or time. If that is not correct please send a list of your publications to me using e-mail from my profile. Each message will be highly appreciated. Of course you can ask any question to me regarding my work that is relevant to this forum. If you have more complex questions send them to my e-mail box please.

Well, colleagues! I traced conversation of this forum for few days saying nothing because it was too far from the matter that was mentioned on its topic. From my point of view it’s possible to make some conclusion for all posts that were made last week. The TT are trying to tell us following. There is flow of time as a physical process. That process makes some interaction with everything including human brain as a physical object of the physical world. That interaction makes some imagination in human mind. We use that imagination and call it "TIME". That is good idea but we have grave problem here. Why human mind is unable to keep correct information of current point of “time” without help of a clock? In other words everybody needs to see indication of a clock before making answer on question “what time is it?” If flow of time passes through the universe as described above human mind must have exact information about each point of time ever because of its indirect interaction with flow of time! But that stays in controversy with observable facts. Why?

If that is true then start point of time must coincide with first man thought. That is impossible because universe exists much longer than mankind! As a result we can see this. Time flow is unable to have any relation to physical implementation of humanbrain (as a physical object). Well, what if I show to you something that goes out of the present time logic? Can you recognize me as the greatest scientist of all time? Be careful with answer on that question please.

Very well! It's a man-made thing. Great! But we have one more question here. Is it possible to logically made thing to have interaction with PHYSICAL aspects of surrounding world? If time exists only in human mind it is unable to change physical processes anyway! And we come back to Einstein's theory again. If we exclude man-made category from that theory it crushes completely.

That is precisely correct. Thinking further we have following questions. What if time is not only assumed factor? What if time itself never exists physically? In that case all speculations about nature of time become wrong. At the same time that point of view crushes Einstein'sphysics completely because it excludes time dimension from space-time continuum.

I think you are right. They tell us a lot of explanations about nature of time. But nobodyis able to answer following question. How a clock does measurement of time?

Among a lot of questions about nature of time there is one question that was never asked before. How a clock does interaction with flow of time? I guess nobody is able to answer that question.