Dark matter Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 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.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted August 24, 2008 Author Share Posted August 24, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted August 25, 2008 Author Share Posted August 25, 2008 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted August 25, 2008 Author Share Posted August 25, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 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."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted August 25, 2008 Author Share Posted August 25, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Golly, with a well supported and logically structured response like that, who can argue with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted August 25, 2008 Author Share Posted August 25, 2008 Golly, with a well supported and logically structured response like that, who can argue with you? apparently you can't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted August 25, 2008 Author Share Posted August 25, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJBruce Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamey2k9 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted April 24, 2009 Author Share Posted April 24, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etcetcetc00 Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thief Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 I think you are still mistaken.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now