Defining time

[jeff Mitchel]

I would like to define time as the "speed of one entity in relationship to the speed of another entity" i.e. It takes her 1 hour to walk around the block. (her speed in relation to the speed of the clock.) Where problems arise is when we use the word "time" in the abstract: "The time it takes for the earth to go around the sun is one year." The above statement has nothing to do with time but is the definition of a year, i.e. When the earth goes around the sun we call it a year. Yes, yes, Quarks Rule!!

[timo]

I don't understand what you are saying.

[Klaynos]

I don't understand what you are saying.

 

You are not alone.

[iNow]

Maybe the question has something to do with his mention of the objects themselves.

 

When one walks around a block, it is not consistent. You could run, you could be sluggish, you might have longer or short legs than the next guy... so the duration is variable.

 

However, the earth around the sun is very precise and consistent. Very few extraneous variables, which is why we call a year a "year"... it's consistent... very consistent... and measurements are the same... However, we don't call a trip around a building anything really, becauase there are so many dynamic variables involved...

 

 

However, with all of that said, I'm quite in agreement with the two posters before me. I'm not very confident that I've understood the question.

[jeff Mitchel]

I am saying that the word "time", and the "concept of time" has been lost because it does not have an exact definition. the statements "It's time to take the dog out" and "The time is 4:00 o'clock" has no relatoionship to the speed of one entity to the speed of another entity.

[Klaynos]

but it does because 4pm on the 10th april 2008 is a given number of seconds from an arbitary point, which we use as a point of reference.

[thedarkshade]

"The time it takes for the earth to go around the sun is one year." The above statement has nothing to do with time but is the definition of a year, i.e. When the earth goes around the sun we call it a year. Yes, yes, Quarks Rule!!

This is earth's speed in relation with the speed of clock too (as you like to call it that way). But anyways, our current definitions of time are good enough and we can pretty well orientate by them, even though we might not yet have the complete picture.

[iNow]

This strikes me as more of a "the complexities of language" question than a physics one.

[Eric 5]

I am saying that the word "time", and the "concept of time" has been lost because it does not have an exact definition. the statements "It's time to take the dog out" and "The time is 4:00 o'clock" has no relatoionship to the speed of one entity to the speed of another entity.

 

 

Time does have an exact definition. Look in any dictionary. Looks like you are trying to fit YOUR definition of time with standard definitions of time. The standard definitions of time in the dictionary are the definitions of time.

[Klaynos]

Time does have an exact definition. Look in any dictionary. Looks like you are trying to fit YOUR definition of time with standard definitions of time. The standard definitions of time in the dictionary are the definitions of time.

 

You really need to get over your dictionary, it's not a technical source, and infact will have alot of definitions that are completely different to those used in science, as swansont has mentioned previously coincidence is a great example. Your argument is therefore fundamentally flawed and there's really very little point in replying to you again.

[iNow]

What does the dictionary say about the word "troll?" Does it adequately cover what you are doing here?

[thedarkshade]

Time does have an exact definition. Look in any dictionary. Looks like you are trying to fit YOUR definition of time with standard definitions of time. The standard definitions of time in the dictionary are the definitions of time.

There is a difference between 'a definition' and 'an exact definition'. You can't have an exact definition of something that you don't exactly understand in the first place.

[Eric 5]

You really need to get over your dictionary, it's not a technical source, and infact will have alot of definitions that are completely different to those used in science, as swansont has mentioned previously coincidence is a great example. Your argument is therefore fundamentally flawed and there's really very little point in replying to you again.

 

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?

[iNow]

Eric 5 is doing this also on another forum (under a different username), and a friend of mine there summarized his behavior thusly:

 

 

 

I found it rather appropriate.

[Eric 5]

There is a difference between 'a definition' and 'an exact definition'. You can't have an exact definition of something that you don't exactly understand in the first place.

 

 

 

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.

[thedarkshade]

That is not what I am saying Eric, that is what you are saying. And if physics did COMPLETELY understand time, then we wouldn't really have any reason to confront about it since the confrontation would be avoided by facts.

[Eric 5]

Eric 5 is doing this also on another forum (under a different username), and a friend of mine there summarized his behavior thusly:

 

 

 

I found it rather appropriate.

 

 

 

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?

[iNow]

That is not what I am saying Eric, that is what you are saying. And if physics did COMPLETELY understand time, then we wouldn't really have any reason to confront about it since the confrontation would be avoided by facts.

 

But physics DOES understand time, and that understanding has been conveyed to Eric5 repeatedly. He is after a metaphysical definition, not a physical one, and he is struggling with the concept of preferred reference frames as well.

[thedarkshade]

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?

NONE! It's not man-made, it has existed long before men evolved and it definitely is not in a physical form.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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?

 

It has no tangible/physical form, but it does exist.

[Eric 5]

That is not what I am saying Eric, that is what you are saying. And if physics did COMPLETELY understand time, then we wouldn't really have any reason to confront about it since the confrontation would be avoided by facts.

 

 

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

[thedarkshade]

It does not completely understand it, but our current understanding is enough to be able to 'manipulate with it'.

[D H]

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

The field of physics does not completely understand anything. At least that is the fervent hope of hundreds of PhD physics candidates around the world. After all, they have to contribute something new to the field to get those three letters appended to their names. Complete understanding is the realm of religion and crackpots, not science.

[Eric 5]

NONE! It's not man-made, it has existed long before men evolved and it definitely is not in a physical form.

 

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.

[Klaynos]

It exists in the same way space does.

 

Again dictionary definition are of no use here. Do you take nothing on board?