thief Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Thief here... Before this thread dies.... I saw the note early on in this thread. I was disappointed to see it was all but ignored. Time does not exist. It is not a force...such as gravity. It is a form of measurement....a cognitive construct....created in the mind of man...a cognitive tool...to serve man. Numbers go the same way. Numbers are cognitive tools...which we use to examine our 'realities'. Take away the numbers....take away the clocks....nothing stops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Please see my response in the other thread in which you posted this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thief Posted April 20, 2009 Author Share Posted April 20, 2009 Thief here... That we have cognition does not bring such to touch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Say what now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thief Posted April 21, 2009 Author Share Posted April 21, 2009 Thief here... So I looked it up in the Webster's... There is a long list of definitions, none of which give rise that 'time' is anything but a means of measurement. As measure...it is purely a cognitive effort. It is not a force or energy...nor is it a substance having mass. As a measure it is used to calculate, compute, or compare movement. It is never the cause or effect of any event of movement. As a measure it does not influence. It is only a cognitive device, created by man to serve man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) As DJBruce has noted, this is contradicted by the title. So is there a point to all this, or should I lock the thread? AFAICS no reason not to lock thread. In any case, it no longer has any connection with astronomy (if it ever did), and does not belong in Astro/Cosmo forum The thread was reactivated by posts of a poetical/philosophical or speculative nature by Thief. Thief here...Before this thread dies.... I saw the note early on in this thread. I was disappointed to see it was all but ignored. Time does not exist. It is not a force...such as gravity. It is a form of measurement....a cognitive construct....created in the mind of man...a cognitive tool...to serve man. Numbers go the same way. Numbers are cognitive tools...which we use to examine our 'realities'. Take away the numbers....take away the clocks....nothing stops. Thief here...That we have cognition does not bring such to touch. Thief here...So I looked it up in the Webster's... There is a long list of definitions, none of which give rise that 'time' is anything but a means of measurement. As measure...it is purely a cognitive effort. It is not a force or energy...nor is it a substance having mass. As a measure it is used to calculate, compute, or compare movement. It is never the cause or effect of any event of movement. As a measure it does not influence. It is only a cognitive device, created by man to serve man. Thief, I'm personally open to the point of view that speculative philosophy can be helpful to physics and assist scientific progress. I think it has in the past. (Einstein and Bohr's contemporaries and the next generation after them were educated in the philosophy of science and it probably helped them ask the right questions.) But it does't always help. Philosophy is not always relevant. Only at certain junctions in the history of physics has it played a key role, I think. You are venturing into philosophical speculations about time (and related things, like movement, and cognition). Do you think of this as relevant to science? I'm curious. For example, how would your thoughts about time help a physicist solve some theoretical problem? Edited April 21, 2009 by Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thief Posted April 21, 2009 Author Share Posted April 21, 2009 Thief here...thank for this opportunity. The first post did seem to be a simple and straight forward question. I see no cause to treat the concept of time as anything but that. It has no influence, no effect. It has no substance...it has no push or pull. It is part of a number system that allows us to gage and compare movement. I wasn't trying to be poetic, or philosophical. Perhaps the discussion we are now having is the linguistic effect of repeatedly using a concept in such a manner, that we train ourselves to think of it as corporeal. It may very well assist a scientist, that he discern clearly that some items are of thought, not having embodiment. That we are able to hold an idea within our thoughts, manipulate that idea to great length, and achieve predictable results..... does not render that item as tangible. Time in a bottle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GutZ Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 If space has no substance...how is our planet floatling like it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 I see no cause to treat the concept of time as anything but that. It has no influence, no effect. You had better read two recent prize-winning essays on time (by two top experts). Both of them develop further ideas akin to what you have expressed. Click on PDF to get the full text. Rovelli "Forget Time" http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3832 Barbour "The Nature of Time" http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3489 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 If space has no substance...how is our planet floatling like it is? because of the matter IN space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GutZ Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Ok but then how does gravity fit in? If your saying space is curving matter, what affects does that have on matter? What aspect of space has an opposing charge that would cause the repeliing factor in the first place....If matter is IN space. It have to be trapped there some how. If you look at space from the 3 dimensions....You have that grid how do you have matter inside space, yet have no buldges or curves in space? We wouldnt't see the earth otherwise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etcetcetc00 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Thief here...Before this thread dies.... I saw the note early on in this thread. I was disappointed to see it was all but ignored. Time does not exist. It is not a force...such as gravity. It is a form of measurement....a cognitive construct....created in the mind of man...a cognitive tool...to serve man. Numbers go the same way. Numbers are cognitive tools...which we use to examine our 'realities'. Take away the numbers....take away the clocks....nothing stops. I have a problem with this post. Seconds, minutes and hours are forms of measurement, as are meters, grams, and liters. Take a liter of water. The liter measures volume. Take away the measurement and the volume is still there. Same goes with a meter stick. Take away the markings, it still has length. Take away the measurement of he time is took me to write this post, and there's still a difference discernable between the two points in time where I started and where I finished. The duration is there, and the change still occurs over time. Scientists do one of two things in scientific development. They either invent, or discover. The change of states of things from one minute to the next exists with or without our measurement. We discovered that. We invented seconds, minutes and hours to keep track of the change, but they do not constitute time, only reference it. General relativity, I think, throws our conception of time into question. How can an abstract mathematical concept be altered by gravity? There should have to be some sort of physicality involved, or else how could it change? On a side note, can anybody explain what Einstein meant in his letter to Michael Besso's widow where he talked about time not really existing like we thought? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 AFAICS no reason not to lock thread. In any case, it no longer has any connection with astronomy (if it ever did), and does not belong in Astro/Cosmo forum The thread was reactivated by posts of a poetical/philosophical or speculative nature by Thief. As such I've split it off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thief Posted April 25, 2009 Author Share Posted April 25, 2009 (edited) Thief here... Thank you Martin for the pdf's. Good stuff! Especially to see poetry in a science paper. To be fair to this thread...I've been looking for cause to recant my previous posts. Found none. References at hand describe time as a measure. I can see why Barbour and Rovelli are attempting to use equations without time as a quantity. I for one never thought of time as anything but a measure. Never once a substance or a force. After all, a measure is supposed to be consistent in concept. If it is needful to tweak the quantity of time to balance the equation.... What are we doing?!!!! The word quantity to a layman brings thought of weight or charge. To a mathematician it is a component of his equation. I think this is where post#1 (is time real?)took it's asking. Edited April 25, 2009 by thief 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