A Time Experiment

[Greg A.]

On 7/16/2022 at 10:45 PM, Peterkin said:

Time is a fluid. The reason you can't travel in it is that the past has frozen solid, impenetrable; the future is random vapour; no footing or traction: only the present is liquid enough to move around in in.

That's a good way of looking at it and is how we perceive of events but it's not how it is as you need to bring an unnecessary factor into that which is time, that's when only motion is needed there as an explanation. 

[Intoscience]

8 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

That's a good way of looking at it and is how we perceive of events but it's not how it is as you need to bring an unnecessary factor into that which is time, that's when only motion is needed there as an explanation. 

How is time unnecessary? much like you require at least 3 dimensions of space for 3 dimensional objects to exist, you require time for motion and/or change to exist.  

Edited July 20, 2022 by Intoscience

[Greg A.]

On 7/17/2022 at 1:32 AM, zapatos said:

Clearly you are confusing the concepts of time and space. When you return to the starting point you have gone back in SPACE.

Moving from room to room is not necessary for you to move forward in time. Sitting in a comfy chair immobile is also an example of moving forward in time.

In the confines of the two rooms nothing has elapsed, there has only been motion. You are back at your starting point when you return to your seat. That you have moved from A to B and back means nothing. 

 

On 7/17/2022 at 1:32 AM, zapatos said:

When your boss asks you to show up at 8:00am for work, do you manage to do so? If you wish to watch America's Got Talent on the television at 9:00pm, can you do so?

8 am represents a percentage of the earth's rotation (motion) and is different in the 24 time zones 

On 7/17/2022 at 1:32 AM, zapatos said:

I don't mean to make light of your beliefs, but how can you doubt time while simultaneously using it every day?

I believe you are over thinking the concept of time. It is a measurement, just as length, width and height are measurements.

We measure the rate of motion but that has no chronological aspect to it other than that what we perceive of it as being. Yesterday is a perception created by the illusion of a setting sun, tomorrow's the illusion of a rising sun.  

 

On 7/19/2022 at 8:42 PM, swansont said:

I will ask again what model requires this. What is the evidence that this is the case?

That's it, there is no evidence for time that I can see. It might be that a future is detectable if real? But then if it is real even our thoughts are predetermined. But still they would need to match with the outcome maybe? That is we would come to the conclusion the future is real if that were so.  

[Intoscience]

Time is either a consequence emergent from motion or it is fundamental. Either way its a necessity for existence as we know it.

Think about it this way, everything is in constant motion, all the fundamental particles, the vibrating strings (from string theory) etc... So either time emerges from motion or it is fundamental for motion to be possible. There is no getting away from it, just like you require space dimensions for physical massive objects to exist, you also require time for motion to take place. And since massive objects are made up from things that are in constant motion, then without motion those things can't exist. Thus no time = no existence (as we know it)      

[Greg A.]

On 7/19/2022 at 9:08 PM, swansont said:

The velocity describes the motion. In standard physics these are not separate things.

What are the equations that would let us test this? And show how velocity is a "medium"

 

And yet we have length contraction, which tells us that length is relative to the observer, which means it depends on velocity.

Sure, but the velocity of a boomerang and it's motion (spinning) are different. Velocity is the medium we all travel with in spacetime. Length contraction is relative to the observer as is the slowing of motion that increases with velocity (but there is no actual time travel involved). 

 

[zapatos]

36 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

Yesterday is a perception created by the illusion of a setting sun

You seem to be living in a fantasy world of your own making.

[studiot]

I think this nonsense thread has shown itself unworthy of General Philosophy and note that the door to speculations and lid of the trash can are wide open.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

That's it, there is no evidence for time that I can see.

Yes, I get that. But you stated the reason for this is that there is no medium for it. I’m not aware that anyone thinks that time requires a medium, and so this seems like you’re making up a reason to not believe in time, which isn’t a particularly solid foundation for an argument 

48 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

Sure, but the velocity of a boomerang and it's motion (spinning) are different.

Yes, linear and angular velocity are different things, but this isn’t the same as what you claimed.

48 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

Velocity is the medium we all travel with in spacetime.

So you have asserted. How do we detect this medium?

 

48 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

 

Length contraction is relative to the observer

So you agree it’s velocity-dependent

48 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

as is the slowing of motion that increases with velocity (but there is no actual time travel involved). 

 

Slowing of motion that increases with velocity? What?

[Greg A.]

On 7/19/2022 at 9:11 PM, studiot said:

Who is this we ?

I see lots of evidence everywhere I look, as I believe do most folks.

In fact I find it difficult (though not impossible) to find evidence of phenomena that don't require time.

You yourself, have offered plenty of evidence in this thread and then dismissed it as 'an illusion'.

Perhaps you are just an illusion, after all I have never seen you.

We don't see evidence of time but see instead change which we assign a time factor. Aging is one of the  things  we see but can be reversed without any of the other signs changing. 

And I'm just another part of the physical world, as we all are, another 'node' as it were.

On 7/19/2022 at 9:49 PM, studiot said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bridge_(Lake_Havasu_City)

Unless they rebuilt it.

Funny that you should choose this example, of all the possibilities.

 

It's a nursery rhyme we'd all know I was thinking. And I did cover that with the parameters "London Bridge" (which don't include 'rebuilt').   

 

On 7/19/2022 at 9:49 PM, studiot said:

 

But swansont and I have pointed out more fundamental problems with your proposition, to which we would be grateful for answers.

Maybe it's my poor wordskills which are at their limit. Or that I should give anyone one lessons on something (physics) that I don't all that much about myself. 

On 7/19/2022 at 10:25 PM, dimreepr said:

You seem very confused about what actually exists and when; all you can know, with any degree of certainty, is what's happening now, to you; for instance, if you're alive in 97 year's, you can confirm the transit of Venus (unless it gets hit by a Tesla and, in 96 year's, it crashed into the sun)...  

We know the past because it was an arrangement of positions that meant something to us. And we can say the  the future does exist as far as we are aware because we could calculate much of tomorrow, but further on things are harder to predict especially when quantum fluctuations may also play a part in deciding the future. . 

[Greg A.]

10 hours ago, Intoscience said:

How is time unnecessary? much like you require at least 3 dimensions of space for 3 dimensional objects to exist, you require time for motion and/or change to exist.  

Time relates to velocity whereas motion gives us the  concept of there being the Time that would involves past, present and future as things chronologically arranged. But these are calculations only when it comes to velocity. Something's prior and future positions, when only its 'now' position is real. The past and future were and will be arrangements brought about by motion overseen by velocity.I can see I'm not doing a good job with this my poor workdskills compounded by a lack of knowledge. 

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

You seem to be living in a fantasy world of your own making.

 

I hope you are right for your own sake, as otherwise it does look like the illusion of Time has taken you in. If we were in a stationary orbit in relation to the rising sun, then it would be forever morning. Days in their entirety would cease to exist (which would fail completely in explaining yesterday and tomorrow). 

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Time is either a consequence emergent from motion or it is fundamental. Either way its a necessity for existence as we know it.

Think about it this way, everything is in constant motion, all the fundamental particles, the vibrating strings (from string theory) etc... So either time emerges from motion or it is fundamental for motion to be possible. There is no getting away from it, just like you require space dimensions for physical massive objects to exist, you also require time for motion to take place. And since massive objects are made up from things that are in constant motion, then without motion those things can't exist. Thus no time = no existence (as we know it)      

That's right but the contentious issue is not time, but is instead Time which it appears does not exist. That is the past, present and future does not exist there is only velocity and motion. What we conceive of as past events were arrangements that have changed over time but involve two different concepts, one being velocity and the other motion, a chronology pertaining to us .  

Edited July 21, 2022 by Greg A.

[Greg A.]

10 hours ago, studiot said:

I think this nonsense thread has shown itself unworthy of General Philosophy and note that the door to speculations and lid of the trash can are wide open.

The thread has got off-track with the discussion of the meaning of time. But, regardless feel free to leave if that's what you think. 

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes, I get that. But you stated the reason for this is that there is no medium for it. I’m not aware that anyone thinks that time requires a medium, and so this seems like you’re making up a reason to not believe in time, which isn’t a particularly solid foundation for an argument 

Yes, linear and angular velocity are different things, but this isn’t the same as what you claimed.

The medium for time is velocity, but there is no medium for Time as it is an illusion generated by motion (that's other than our 'shared' velocity). 

10 hours ago, swansont said:

So you have asserted. How do we detect this medium?

The only way that I can think of is the parallel convergence we register as gravity which is due to of our shared velocity in space and time. We need to be traveling at the same velocity of earth to have 'weight'. If we travel faster than earth we appear to weigh less. If we travel fast enough we remain parallel (non-converging) but end up weightless in our orbit.  

10 hours ago, swansont said:

 

So you agree it’s velocity-dependent

Slowing of motion that increases with velocity? What?

Time is velocity dependent, but this has nothing to do with what were perceive of as is going on around us. That is our 'time' does not relate to our velocity through space, but does relate to change brought about by motion around us. For example the rotation of the earth does not involve actual time (to any real degree), but does involve our perception of time. 

Time dilation increases with velocity of an object relative to ourselves. Its motion, other than it's velocity, slows. Or from its perspective we speed up. 

[Markus Hanke]

5 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Or from its perspective we speed up. 

Except that’s not what happens - in fact, the opposite is true. Kinematic time dilation in inertial frames is symmetric; ‘we’ see the receding clock slow down, yet from the frame of the clock it’s ‘us’ who’s seen to be time dilated.

That’s because time dilation is a relationship between frames in spacetime; it is not a physical property of any one frame. And since that relationship is the same irrespective of which of the two inertial frames you are in, you see the same thing from either vantage point.

[Greg A.]

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

Except that’s not what happens - in fact, the opposite is true. Kinematic time dilation in inertial frames is symmetric; ‘we’ see the receding clock slow down, yet from the frame of the clock it’s ‘us’ who’s seen to be time dilated.

That’s because time dilation is a relationship between frames in spacetime; it is not a physical property of any one frame. And since that relationship is the same irrespective of which of the two inertial frames you are in, you see the same thing from either vantage point.

Sure, that looks right. But its not what we mean when we talk about time dilation. We are not in an inertial frame ourselves as the observers. Can we be getting that wrong?

[studiot]

10 hours ago, Greg A. said:

On 7/19/2022 at 12:11 PM, studiot said:

Who is this we ?

I see lots of evidence everywhere I look, as I believe do most folks.

In fact I find it difficult (though not impossible) to find evidence of phenomena that don't require time.

You yourself, have offered plenty of evidence in this thread and then dismissed it as 'an illusion'.

Perhaps you are just an illusion, after all I have never seen you.

Expand  

We don't see evidence of time but see instead change which we assign a time factor. Aging is one of the  things  we see but can be reversed without any of the other signs changing. 

And I'm just another part of the physical world, as we all are, another 'node' as it were.

 

You remind me of the Sunday preacher who starts with something innocuous, like 'as I was spreading the marmalade on my toast'  and extrapolates directly to whatever brand of religion he peddles, hellfire and damnation / benevolence / whatever in your response to other folks. He inevitably ogneroe / dismisses any other opionions as though they did not exist and simple repeats his nonsense claims.

I asked you who 'we' was and made it quite plain that I did not wish to be included in your 'we'   - whoever they were and even offered a reasonable polite comment as to why I held that view.

The first words of your response were to repeat the assertion 'we...'

 

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Greg A. said:

The medium for time is velocity, but there is no medium for Time as it is an illusion generated by motion (that's other than our 'shared' velocity). 

This is just replacing one fabrication with another, without getting us closer to a solution.

8 hours ago, Greg A. said:

The only way that I can think of is the parallel convergence we register as gravity which is due to of our shared velocity in space and time. We need to be traveling at the same velocity of earth to have 'weight'. If we travel faster than earth we appear to weigh less. If we travel fast enough we remain parallel (non-converging) but end up weightless in our orbit.  

This is clearly BS, including the fact that it's not particularly rigorous, as there is no equation presented to tell us how the weight would change with velocity, so specific predictions can't be made. If the description were less vague this would be trivial to refute.

One traveling in a car or a plane does not see their weight change, much less see it increase if they travel west and less if they travel east. Our orbital speed is ~30 km/s, and during the daytime we're moving slower and in the nighttime faster (by up to 1 km/s) owing to our rotation, so it's not even clear what "moving faster than the earth" even means, since the surface does not have a fixed velocity. 

An object in orbit travels both with and against the motion of the earth's orbit, and yet its weight does not fluctuate. Objects orbit in directions that are not parallel to the equator and once again, their weight is not dependent on the velocity.

Since this is your claim to evidence that velocity is a medium, then I consider that refuted. But by all means, come up with a better test, and we can go through how that can also be refuted. 

 

8 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Time is velocity dependent, but this has nothing to do with what were perceive of as is going on around us. That is our 'time' does not relate to our velocity through space,

And yet we have experiments that show exactly this.

8 hours ago, Greg A. said:

but does relate to change brought about by motion around us. For example the rotation of the earth does not involve actual time (to any real degree), but does involve our perception of time. 

Time dilation increases with velocity of an object relative to ourselves. Its motion, other than it's velocity, slows. Or from its perspective we speed up. 

If you reject time, what other motion is there? Motion through/in space corresponds to a velocity. What is this new mystical category of motion that slows down?

[Intoscience]

12 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Something's prior and future positions, when only its 'now' position is real.

But different frames of reference may not agree on the 'now' so which one is the "real" now? 

In addition, technically it could be said that we are always living in the past, since our experiences depend on information and the propagation of that information which may vary in speed and then our systems have to process that information which also has a speed associated with it. So which is the real now? 

A simply analogy would be for example, when you hear a clasp of thunder did it thunder right then at the very moment you heard it or did it thunder in the past? 

[studiot]

On 7/13/2022 at 11:38 AM, Greg A. said:

How this question comes up is that I'd made a simple projection some years back, one that has in the last few years turned into a now (dire) prediction, that despite all attempts I cannot make any headway in presenting. Leading me to consider that it is inevitable, a part of the future. This possibly explaining why as a challenge to an outcome that's already in existence there consequenlty not a lot can be done?

 

Is the real reason for this thread to continue to deflect questions as to what this famous disaster of yours is ?

 

Here is a quote from

Quote

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62234188

Germany's leading energy expert says she's living in a nightmare. What's worse, she saw it coming.

For 15 years Claudia Kemfert says she tried to warn politicians and the public that the country was too reliant on Russian energy.

Until recently Germany bought more than half of its gas from Russia. She advised Berlin to find other sources and focus more on renewables. And she warned against the construction of the Nord Stream 1 pipeline through which Germany receives much of its gas.

"That's what I did over the last 15 years, repeating and repeating and repeating. Hoping that what's happened now would never happen," she says, her frustration evident.

Vladimir Putin's decision to, in effect, weaponise Russian gas exports has sent Germany into a tailspin. Moscow has blamed essential maintenance on the Nord Stream pipeline for a recent reduction, then complete shut-off, of supply.

Few in Berlin are buying that. Even fewer believe Russia can be trusted to deliver what Germany needs for the coming winter.

today's BBC News of something that may be similar.

 

 

 

[CharonY]

!

Moderator Note

Off-topic discussions split to trash.

 

[Greg A.]

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

But different frames of reference may not agree on the 'now' so which one is the "real" now? 

In addition, technically it could be said that we are always living in the past, since our experiences depend on information and the propagation of that information which may vary in speed and then our systems have to process that information which also has a speed associated with it. So which is the real now? 

A simply analogy would be for example, when you hear a clasp of thunder did it thunder right then at the very moment you heard it or did it thunder in the past? 

Sure, and that past is dependent on the speed of sound, or of light if something is visual. But these things still are really present events. Whereas yesterday's f*rts for example have long dispersed physically and audibly. 

12 hours ago, studiot said:

 

You remind me of the Sunday preacher who starts with something innocuous, like 'as I was spreading the marmalade on my toast'  and extrapolates directly to whatever brand of religion he peddles, hellfire and damnation / benevolence / whatever in your response to other folks. He inevitably ignores / dismisses any other opinions as though they did not exist and simple repeats his nonsense claims.

That is a good analogy if it is that 'your' (philosophies) Block Time' thing is real. But that said I don't believe I've made any mistakes really. Important detail may have been lost to my poor word skills though. It was necessary that there was a debate on the meaning of time I accept that. But if what is alluded to in the opening post is for whatever reason 'already' a future event its occurrence will resist any attempts to change it, and this the better explanation as to why we have not been able to precede. That is for example my inability with words is going to be one of the barriers that protect the event I'm predicting. 

12 hours ago, studiot said:

I asked you who 'we' was and made it quite plain that I did not wish to be included in your 'we'   - whoever they were and even offered a reasonable polite comment as to why I held that view.

The first words of your response were to repeat the assertion 'we...'

 

'We' all share a common genetic thread and can't really see things all too different. We can have different opinions as individuals but mostly only one of us is going to be right in the end.  

Edited July 21, 2022 by Greg A.

[Markus Hanke]

13 hours ago, Greg A. said:

We are not in an inertial frame ourselves as the observers. Can we be getting that wrong?

It doesn’t really matter much whether or not the frames are perfectly inertial - non-inertial frames experience time dilation, too. The difference is just that the relationship between such frames is more complicated than a simple Lorentz transformation, but Special Relativity handles that just fine. For practical applications - such as particle accelerators - the deviation from perfect inertiality is usually negligible.

If you do want a perfectly inertial frame, you can use clocks in a satellite or on the ISS as your reference; they are in free fall and thus locally inertial. 

[Intoscience]

11 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Sure, and that past is dependent on the speed of sound, or of light if something is visual. But these things still are really present events

All observers may agree that an event happens, but they may not agree on when. In other words, there is no argument that an event happens, but there is no one universal 'present' for the event.

[Greg A.]

23 hours ago, swansont said:

This is just replacing one fabrication with another, without getting us closer to a solution.

This is clearly BS, including the fact that it's not particularly rigorous, as there is no equation presented to tell us how the weight would change with velocity, so specific predictions can't be made. If the description were less vague this would be trivial to refute.

23 hours ago, swansont said:

One traveling in a car or a plane does not see their weight change, much less see it increase if they travel west and less if they travel east. Our orbital speed is ~30 km/s, and during the daytime we're moving slower and in the nighttime faster (by up to 1 km/s) owing to our rotation, so it's not even clear what "moving faster than the earth" even means, since the surface does not have a fixed velocity. 

An object in orbit travels both with and against the motion of the earth's orbit, and yet its weight does not fluctuate. Objects orbit in directions that are not parallel to the equator and once again, their weight is not dependent on the velocity.

Since this is your claim to evidence that velocity is a medium, then I consider that refuted. But by all means, come up with a better test, and we can go through how that can also be refuted. 

 

And yet we have experiments that show exactly this.

If you reject time, what other motion is there? Motion through/in space corresponds to a velocity. What is this new mystical category of motion that slows down?

The difficulty I'm having explaining my simple understandings is due to the strength of a prediction, the inevitability of it happening that is. The orbit of Venus is a very physical thing and is why it would be very difficult to change.  And philosophically there would be no logical reason to change it anyhow. So physics and philosophy won't do anything there.  But suppose some other course of events these leading to one significant outcome was also set to eventuate, then likewise barriers must appear (less physical but more philosophical in this instance). And so it's these that explain why I'm unable to clarify what it is I'm saying above. And even if I'd tried harder yet another barrier would pop up. For example it's only while I appear to make no (not alot) of sense that I will continue to get responses.  So, that said these will drop off exponentially if I do appear to make sense. And if as this is what I'm managing to do now, then you will see less replies from yourselves, (something I'd like to avoid, but what the hell). There is a pattern to these things that's consistent with determinism I'm afraid. But I will give it another go as I'd rather lose the interactions than be dishonest. So starting from the top:

You'd asked me to provide evidence of time such that it shows difference from the day to day meaning of the word. Then it's gravity as a force that is as much of an illusion as is time is in the course of out lives is what I'd given as an example.

So, if we were to start pedaling our bikes, ignoring wind resistance etc., eventually we would reach a velocity where we would lose traction due to the fact that the parallel straight line we were travelling would, because of our increasing speed, no longer converge with that of the earth's. That is our velocity would be sufficient (in bursts) to put us into a very low orbit, a state of weightlessness. We conclude gravity(a product of time) as a force is an illusion, and time as we know it is also an illusion. In orbit our velocity breaks the convergence factor we feel as gravity and gives us a different position is space time (we age slightly slower). 

Convergence/gravity is evidence of time, but time is not evident in the years. Years are human concepts, numbers we apply to each rotation of the earth. 

 

 

57 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

All observers may agree that an event happens, but they may not agree on when. In other words, there is no argument that an event happens, but there is no one universal 'present' for the event.

That's right. And that is because time is real in the sense we are in motion through space.  And we all need to agree that the Eiffel tower not only exists  but that it was built in the year 1887. 

Edited July 22, 2022 by Greg A.
Word choice

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

The difficulty I'm having explaining my simple understandings is due to the strength of a prediction, the inevitability of it happening that is. The orbit of Venus is a very physical thing and is why it would be very difficult to change.  And philosophically there would be no logical reason to change it anyhow. So physics and philosophy won't do anything there. 

A significant strength of science is that it allows one to make predictions, often with astonishing precision and accuracy. You have yet to convey what the real problem is with this.

 

33 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

 

So starting from the top:

You'd asked me to provide evidence of time such that it shows difference from the day to day meaning of the word. Then it's gravity as a force that is as much of an illusion as is time is in the course of out lives is what I'd given as an example.

No, I asked you to provide evidence that your description of time exists - that's it's something that requires a medium. The underlying concept you used to deny the existence of time. I want to know how time would require a medium, were it to exist. Because otherwise this is just the straw-man fallacy.

 

33 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

So, if we were to start pedaling our bikes, ignoring wind resistance etc., eventually we would reach a velocity where we would lose traction due to the fact that the parallel straight line we were travelling would, due to our increasing speed, no longer converge with that of the earth's. That is our velocity would be sufficient (in bursts) to put us into a very low orbit, a state of weightlessness. We conclude gravity(a product of time) as a force is an illusion, and time as we know it is also an illusion. In orbit our velocity breaks the convergence factor we feel as gravity and gives us a different position is space time (we age slightly slower). 

Who is "we"?

Mainstream physics has a perfectly good explanation for why someone would begin to orbit if they traveled fast enough, and it doesn't involve concluding that gravity is an illusion.

 

33 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

Years are human concepts, numbers we apply to each rotation of the earth. 

Years are just part of a reference system. All measurements are made in reference to some standard. they are all human concepts, so this isn't a mark against time. There is a standard meter, there is a standard kilogram, a standard ampere, a standard Kelvin...

[Greg A.]

On 7/22/2022 at 8:41 PM, swansont said:

A significant strength of science is that it allows one to make predictions, often with astonishing precision and accuracy. You have yet to convey what the real problem is with this.

There is science used in understanding society but to make predictions about it as would be done with physics or chemistry is not possible. 

On 7/22/2022 at 8:41 PM, swansont said:

 

No, I asked you to provide evidence that your description of time exists - that's it's something that requires a medium. The underlying concept you used to deny the existence of time. I want to know how time would require a medium, were it to exist. Because otherwise this is just the straw-man fallacy.

Time is a measure of motion through space. It is not a thing and so does not need a medium. If anything it is a medium as far as making measurements. 

On 7/22/2022 at 8:41 PM, swansont said:

 

Who is "we"?

We is us, people, humans. You don't know how to ride a bicycle?

On 7/22/2022 at 8:41 PM, swansont said:

Mainstream physics has a perfectly good explanation for why someone would begin to orbit if they traveled fast enough, and it doesn't involve concluding that gravity is an illusion.

Gravity is not an illusion but it is also not a force. The  moon is weightless because it has a velocity greater than earth and consequently is in a non-convergent parallel orbit. If it were slowed down it would eventually converge with earth, but that's as the two coming together rather than either falling or rising toward each other.   

 

On 7/22/2022 at 8:41 PM, swansont said:

Years are just part of a reference system. All measurements are made in reference to some standard. they are all human concepts, so this isn't a mark against time. There is a standard meter, there is a standard kilogram, a standard ampere, a standard Kelvin...

Hours (minutes and seconds), weeks, months & years all have one thing in common. And that is they don't really have anything in common. 

Whereas, (with the exception of Kelvin), one amp applied at one volt for one second (1 watt) liberates one Joule of energy, enough to raise one cubic centimeter of water weighing one gram one degree Celsius, a thousand cubic centimeters, a volume of one liter, when consisting of water weighs one kilo, one cubic meter of water weighing one metric ton, factors having everything in common with each other. 

Edited July 23, 2022 by Greg A.

[dimreepr]

On 7/21/2022 at 11:21 PM, Greg A. said:

Sure, and that past is dependent on the speed of sound, or of light if something is visual. But these things still are really present events. Whereas yesterday's f*rts for example have long dispersed physically and audibly. 

That depends on how big your ears are... 😉