hijack from time

[scherado]

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You said you accept time as a physical process. Where did you give your justification for that?

I'm so glad you asked: da justa.

On 9/30/2017 at 4:23 PM, scherado said:

 

The origin of: "Time is a physical process"

This is paraphrased: I don't remember the precise words. I was passing a television (it was on, sometime between 1985-1993, best guess) and there was a show on about this subject. I don't know the title of the show; I don't know, today, who spoke; and I watched for a few minutes at most. I came away with the thought, "time is a physical process."

After hearing that short bit, I thought of it occasionally over many years and upon each occasion--I'm avoiding using the word "time"--I became more convinced of the truth-value of the sentence. When I learned, eventually, the exact "workings" of the atomic clock, Cesium-133 oscillating at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, I thought, yes, another physical process.

The guy was right.

It was then that I began to question what I had not questioned: Time being the one to follow 3, making it 4th in the dimension-scheme promoted and accepted. It had the odor of contrivance.

I'll pause here.

 

Edited October 2, 2017 by scherado

[swansont]

29 minutes ago, scherado said:

I'm so glad you asked: da justa.

Repeating a non-answer is not an answer. Measuring time is a physical process. But you claimed time itself is a physical process. Those are not the same thing

[scherado]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Repeating a non-answer is not an answer. Measuring time is a physical process. But you claimed time itself is a physical process. Those are not the same thing

The best I can assert without blushing is that time is some physical process. If you want to hang your hat on some other conception but not admit that you are speculating, theorizing, parroting someone's theory and so on--you get the picture--then that is your prerogative and choice. I'll stick with what I heard the "science guy" on the television said.

We've got a warehouse of butter
We've got oceans of wine
We've got famine when we need it
Got a designer crime
We've got Mercedes
We've got Porsche
Ferrari and Rolls Royce
We've got a choice...

- Roger Waters, It's a Miracle, off of Amused To Death

Edited October 2, 2017 by scherado

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, scherado said:

I'll stick with what I heard the "science guy" on the television said.

So the half remembered words of an unknown person glimpsed through a window decades ago is better than scientific evidence. Bizarre.

[scherado]

On 9/30/2017 at 4:52 PM, swansont said:

...

What is the referent in "time is a physical process"? 

 

12 hours ago, scherado said:

I do believe that you understand that the only two candidates are "time" and "process". I use "candidate" as one might be flimsy. I ask you directly: Which of the two might be susceptible to the descriptor "flimsy?"

I await your reply.

Do you want to reconsider your question, "Is length a physical 'process?'"

I answered your question about which of the words in my sentence are referents--though you presumed erroneously there was one. Do you, yet, want to reconsider your question, "Is length a physical 'process?'"

On 9/30/2017 at 4:33 PM, swansont said:

Why do you accept time as a physical process? Is length a physical "process"?

I have not been persuaded that it exists separate from, distinct from Matter in motion, which is "existence" in three words. Perhaps, you like that answer better than my longer answers. We all have laundry to do...those of us who don't have it done for us, that is.

On 9/30/2017 at 4:23 PM, scherado said:

 

The origin of: "Time is a physical process"

This is paraphrased: I don't remember the precise words. I was passing a television (it was on, sometime between 1985-1993, best guess) and there was a show on about this subject. I don't know the title of the show; I don't know, today, who spoke; and I watched for a few minutes at most. I came away with the thought, "time is a physical process."

After hearing that short bit, I thought of it occasionally over many years and upon each occasion--I'm avoiding using the word "time"--I became more convinced of the truth-value of the sentence. When I learned, eventually, the exact "workings" of the atomic clock, Cesium-133 oscillating at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, I thought, yes, another physical process.

The guy was right.

It was then that I began to question what I had not questioned: Time being the one to follow 3, making it 4th in the dimension-scheme promoted and accepted. It had the odor of contrivance.

I'll pause here.

 

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

Bizarre.

Please read above "bizarre".

Edited October 2, 2017 by scherado

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, scherado said:

Please read above "bizarre".

Yes. That is exactly what I was commenting on. You prefer the vaguely remembered TV guy over science. That is bizarre.

(Put me back on ignore, now.)

[studiot]

On 29/09/2017 at 0:15 PM, swansont said:

My position of authority on this forum is not based on my ability to read minds. I can only respond to what you write. 

 

I long suspected this, but thank you for confirming your ability.

Is it something to do with that contraption on your head?

 

[swansont]

14 hours ago, scherado said:

I answered your question about which of the words in my sentence are referents--though you presumed erroneously there was one. Do you, yet, want to reconsider your question, "Is length a physical 'process?'"

I don't really care much about diagramming the sentence. Since you hadn't given your reasoning, I was trying to get you to comment on length as well, since people tend to treat them differently at a fundamental level. 

14 hours ago, scherado said:

I have not been persuaded that it exists separate from, distinct from Matter in motion, which is "existence" in three words. Perhaps, you like that answer better than my longer answers. 

That's an indication of what it isn't. You're supposed to tell us your view of what it is.

14 hours ago, scherado said:

The best I can assert without blushing is that time is some physical process.  

Assertions are a dime a dozen. This is a science site. We want some sort of evidence, or a testable hypothesis. 

[scherado]

42 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don't really care much about diagramming the sentence. Since you hadn't given your reasoning, I was trying to get you to comment on length as well, since people tend to treat them differently at a fundamental level. 

That's an indication of what it isn't. You're supposed to tell us your view of what it is.

Assertions are a dime a dozen. This is a science site. We want some sort of evidence, or a testable hypothesis. 

Lock this bleeping thread or resign your responsibilities on this forum. You are over your head. If you haven't been able to detect my views--I'm being kind here--then you ought not be in a position to evaluate anyone's views. Lock the bleeping thread. Thanks in advance.

If you haven't been able to detect my views--I'm being kind here--then you ought not be in a position to evaluate anyone's views

If you haven't been able to detect my views--I'm being kind here--then you ought not be in a position to evaluate anyone's views

Edited October 3, 2017 by scherado

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, scherado said:

Lock this bleeping thread or resign your responsibilities on this forum. You are over your head. If you haven't been able to detect my views--I'm being kind here--then you ought not be in a position to evaluate anyone's views. Lock the bleeping thread. Thanks in advance.

Mommeeee!! The nasty man asked me to explain what I meant and I can't and it's not fair. 

[geordief]

43 minutes ago, Strange said:

Mommeeee!! The nasty man asked me to explain what I meant and I can't and it's not fair. 

You mean you can't detect his views?

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

First, if swansont (or any mod/admin) is participating in a discussion, he doesn't actively moderate it (with some exceptions in Speculations, where the rules don't require as much judgement). He's not wielding any unfair authority to support his positions. I suspect instead he's using his knowledge of science as a working atomic physicist to support the explanations he uses. 

 

!

Moderator Note

Second, it's abundantly clear you don't understand much of what you're defending, since you can't support it with evidence or make a testable prediction that anyone studying science could use to verify the accuracy of your claims. Science isn't about finding proof, it's about finding the best natural explanations, which are always the ones that have a preponderance of evidence  to support them.

Third, you've failed to support your arguments according to the rules of this section. You're also trying to drag our standards down rather than using more rigor to meet them, and that's not what you agreed to when you joined and said you'd follow the rules. If you wanted to test your ideas in a moderated science discussion forum, you shouldn't be pushing back so hard against the constructive criticism.

Thread closed.