Defining time

[Klaynos]

I got bored half way through as it seems you've still ignored what people have told you, clocks (atomic clocks) do NOT measure motion!

 

You can't hold energy in your hand you can hold something that contains energy, energy is a property of stuff.

 

Space and time are dimensions.

 

Please learn how to use quoting properly it makes it hard to read.

[swansont]

Batteries are physical, but they are not energy. They contain energy. And time is not energy.

 

The notion that time only exists because of human perception has already been shown to be flawed.

[lakmilis]

It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time.

 

It is always good to see the young having heard our previous claims

 

Batteries are physical, but they are not energy. They contain energy. And time is not energy.

 

The notion that time only exists because of human perception has already been shown to be flawed.

 

Sorry, I posted a quote reply on 1st page and didn't get to see all... that 'time' or the perception of movement existing only due to human perception must be easy to show is flawed absollutely... but I am sure you nor others are using the argument for the sum of all (or FOR ALL) perceptrons in the universe will still be flawed.

 

In other words.... remove all perceivable entities in the universe from perceiving movement... and one has no way of definining time... other than the cyclic argument that things will still operate the way they do with or without us... sure... but time then would not exist as any practical measure. Face it.... Would life go on... would time exist? these things of course would be futile... time could as such exist or not but it would be absolutely non-sensical to debate it.

 

Just wanted to remind the forum that time is the perception of movement.. (which is not merely human based).

 

I got bored half way through as it seems you've still ignored what people have told you, clocks (atomic clocks) do NOT measure motion!

 

wll klaynos, they do as such... they are measuring differences in states, thus movement... the frequency of such state changes makes us interpret as 'time'... due to relations with other state changes which are consistent in repetition we recognise that there is a range which is (on a human level) constant and thanks to ageing, we relate these processes to that which we all know as time... both at a scientifically measurable level and at a metaphysical level (the notion).

 

 

 

You can't hold energy in your hand you can hold something that contains energy, energy is a property of stuff.

 

Space and time are dimensions.

 

Please learn how to use quoting properly it makes it hard to read.

 

hmmm. I would rather formulate myself as 'stuff' as you call it is rather a property of energy. Before I also make myslf sound a little unclear: What I mean is 'stuff' (I of course take it you mean matter) is a result of energy in a certain form or state...

 

Energy however does not need to be defined through matter.... thus energy is not really a property of stuff but vice versa

 

 

'Space' and 'time' are 'dimensions' in mathematical models we employ to our reality. i.e. space is intuitively 1 dimension... but later on through analysis we quickly realized hey... modelling it in 3 dimensions is useful... and adding time as a dimension came just recently Make ure you really know what you are wishing to say Klaynos

 

PS. My keyboard has lamed out and 's' and 'e' in particular are leniently submissive

[Klaynos]

As swansont works on atomic clocks I'm going with him on they don't measure motion.

 

And I still say that energy is a property of stuff, you can't have pure energy. Photons people often band about as pure energy really are not but are things with energy...

 

I knew what I was saying, space and time are dimensions, I don't see how you could consider space to be anything other than 3 dimensions either, it's clear that things in space have 3 distinct freedoms.