time,does it have a real physical essence?

[Dark matter]

good

 

then we are in agreement

 

now the implications of this relisation....

 

Sorry about that north I guess I didn't really look over what I was writing..

[north]

Originally Posted by north

 

good

 

then we are in agreement

 

now the implications of this relisation....

 

Sorry about that north I guess I didn't really look over what I was writing..

 

no problem there guy , no problem

[Klaynos]

now the implications of this relisation....

 

Are what in your opinion... and as this is a science forum please describe them as physics requires, which means maths

[north]

Are what in your opinion... and as this is a science forum please describe them as physics requires, which means maths

 

I perfer thinking in terms of phyiscal dynamics , and the consequent interactions by objects since ultimately thats what all mathematics comes down to ( what came first the physical reality or existence of objects or mathematics ? obviously the physical )

 

does that mean I disrespect the mathematics or that mathematics isn't important ? no

 

now I'm going to assume your going to disagree with my stand but then what can I say

 

I think the way I do

[iNow]

I think the way I do

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. You cannot just make an assertion, then when questioned on that assertion support it by saying, "that's just what I think" and expect to be taken seriously.

[north]

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. You cannot just make an assertion, then when questioned on that assertion support it by saying, "that's just what I think" and expect to be taken seriously.

 

I use Sound Reasoning above all else when I think

 

as you've read

[iNow]

I use Sound Reasoning above all else when I think

 

as you've read

 

Was that the point where you asked if time had essense, or somewhere else? Maybe where you said that space has no subsance? Perhaps when you said "duration on the other hand is based on the energy applied to either system or just by one system to move together or apart."?

[north]

Originally Posted by north

I use Sound Reasoning above all else when I think

 

as you've read

 

Was that the point where you asked if time had essense, or somewhere else?

 

I didn't ask if time had essence because time doesn't

 

I would never ask " if time has essence " I know better

 

 

 

 

Maybe where you said that space has no subsance?

 

it doesn't

 

 

 

Perhaps when you said "duration on the other hand is based on the energy applied to either system or just by one system to move together or apart."?

 

yes

[iNow]

Golly, with a well supported and logically structured response like that, who can argue with you?

[north]

Golly, with a well supported and logically structured response like that, who can argue with you?

 

apparently you can't

[iNow]

Won't would be a better word choice for you. I've seen how you respond to well reasoned posts rebutting your own, and I honestly don't feel like wasting my time with you... You're too consistent in your approach for me to hold much hope of having a mature dialog with you.

[north]

Won't would be a better word choice for you. I've seen how you respond to well reasoned posts rebutting your own, and I honestly don't feel like wasting my time with you... You're too consistent in your approach for me to hold much hope of having a mature dialog with you.

 

I see

 

so you can't prove me wrong is what your saying

[DJBruce]

I didn't ask if time had essence because time doesn't

 

I would never ask " if time has essence " I know better

 

I quote the title of the thread you posted as proof you did ask if time had essence "time, does it have real physical essence".

 

In my opinion I agree with Klaynos and Gilded in saying that in some way time is as real as space.

[Klaynos]

I perfer thinking in terms of phyiscal dynamics , and the consequent interactions by objects since ultimately thats what all mathematics comes down to ( what came first the physical reality or existence of objects or mathematics ? obviously the physical )

 

does that mean I disrespect the mathematics or that mathematics isn't important ? no

 

now I'm going to assume your going to disagree with my stand but then what can I say

 

I think the way I do

 

You didn't answer my question.

 

And modern physics is primarily about modelling the physical reality mathematically as that is the only way we can do it. Words don't make testable, falsifiable predictions.

[swansont]

I didn't ask if time had essence because time doesn't

 

I would never ask " if time has essence " I know better

 

As DJBruce has noted, this is contradicted by the title.

 

So is there a point to all this, or should I lock the thread?

 

 

Mod note: Some posts have been moved to their own thread here

Edited April 22, 2009 by swansont
add mod not

[jamey2k9]

Isent time just measurement invented to see how long it took you to win the 100m sprint like a cm or a metre we wouldn't be arguing if a cm had physical essence or not so what makes time any different isent it just a measurement?

[north]

Isent time just measurement invented to see how long it took you to win the 100m sprint like a cm or a metre we wouldn't be arguing if a cm had physical essence or not so what makes time any different isent it just a measurement?

 

yes

[etcetcetc00]

Isent time just measurement invented to see how long it took you to win the 100m sprint like a cm or a metre we wouldn't be arguing if a cm had physical essence or not so what makes time any different isent it just a measurement?

 

No.

100m is a length. a meter is just a measurement invented by man to come to terms with length. length exists without meters.

10 seconds is a duration. a second is just a measurement invented by man to come to terms with duration. duration exists without seconds.

 

A clock is fundamentally no different than a meter stick. They both measure things that exist without them.

 

As an argument, saying time does not exist because man made minutes is like saying mass doesn't exist because the kilogram is just something man made up.

[thief]

Thief here...as I suspected.

It's a linguistic problem.

I looked up real in the Webster's.

It is correct to say time is 'real'.

Mathematicians do so.... in that quantities on the chalk board,

are considered (mathematically) real.

Laymen use the word 'real' in reference to those things tangible.

 

Two separate uses.

[Klaynos]

I think you are still mistaken..