Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNO, I'M TRYING TO GET YOU TO DEFINE TIME!
[b] ..Doing those things do not actually alter time itself it only alters the means of measuring time..…
I presume that what you are suggesting here yet again is that time dilation effects are not real and any measurement that shows otherwise are just as a result of “something effecting the measuring interments”. Yet again I point out that t ...[text shortened]... at demolishes you arguments because you are simply unable to concede when you are clearly wrong.[/b]
What good is it to tell me about how time is affected if you have not
described what is changing?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI can see what you are doing, trying to negate all the research done in the last 100 years and all the philosophical debates which have raged over the past 3000 years as to that definition. I gave you my idea of what time is but you reject it because you can safely reject ANY idea of what time is since nobody knows for sure, therefore you can be safe in your rejection of all science and safe in your assumptions of the bible.
Okay, what is time it has nothing to do with Photons! That was the
question, photons are now mute to the topic, Define time? That was
all I wea asking, I'll ignore and forget about photons.
Kelly
For instance, I could tell about the fact that there are very short lived particles, that would explode into other particles in a picosecond, one trillionth of a second and we know that and can measure it, but cosmic rays coming into the top of the atmosphere close to the speed of light, their time flow is slowed down to such an extent they actually reach the surface of the earth whereas at slower speeds would never get there, doing its built in exploding thing "long' before it gets to the earth's surface. But you would just reject it with another solipsism you figure will result in the conundrums you want to proglimate in your desperate attempt to legitimize your mind addled religion.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…What good is it to tell me about how time is affected if you have not described what is changing? …
NO, I'M TRYING TO GET YOU TO DEFINE TIME!
What good is it to tell me about how time is affected if you have not
described what is changing?
Kelly
I could ask the similar question:
“what good is it to tell me about how time is NOT affected if you have not described what is changing?” -after all, you claim that “it is not TIME that is effected, it is the measuring instruments that are effect” (-or words of that effect) -so what are YOU referring to when you speak of “TIME” in these assertions of yours?
Neither you nor I can clearly define what time is because we are not physicists
-so what is your point here?
I think you are trying to change the subject because you want to distract attention away from the fact I pointed out that your argument that “it is not TIME that is effected, it is the measuring instruments that are effect” was demolished -first you say things like “time is a constant” (among other things) and suddenly you make out what you were really just asking all along was “what is time” even through you clearly wasn’t.
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseRead this slowly, maybe it will sink in...define time.
I can see what you are doing, trying to negate all the research done in the last 100 years and all the philosophical debates which have raged over the past 3000 years as to that definition. I gave you my idea of what time is but you reject it because you can safely reject ANY idea of what time is since nobody knows for sure, therefore you can be safe in you ums you want to proglimate in your desperate attempt to legitimize your mind addled religion.
I'm not trying to do anything outside of getting that term defined by
you so we are on the same page in a discussion, you must really have
a piss poor opinion of me that a simple question like that has such
dark rational behind it if I ask it.
If you are telling me no one knows for sure what time is, how is it you
can tell me it slows down, or speeds up, or stands on its head and
rotates? All that has been so far I got an accurate description of a
clock that is only good under very specific conditions so far what you
think time is remains a mystery to me.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou believe only physicists can define time? You have to be told
[b]…What good is it to tell me about how time is affected if you have not described what is changing? …
I could ask the similar question:
“what good is it to tell me about how time is NOT affected if you have not described what is changing?” -after all, you claim that “it is not TIME that is effected, it is the measuring instruments that are ...[text shortened]... t what you were really just asking all along was “what is time” even through you clearly wasn’t.[/b]
what your opinion is on this by someone else?
I have been saying that we can alter instruments, almost anyone can
do that! I have been saying because we know that is true, why is it
you assume it is not instrumentations being altered again, and accept
time itself is being altered?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI've tried to reason with you, scientifically, but to no use. Whatever a pro-science tells you, you act as a anti-science. Now you even believe that there is no time berfore anyone has defined it...? This is anti-science. So you go again, and again, with your anti-science retorics.
No, here we go again sort of implies you get involved in these
discussions which isn’t really the case, typically you only insult
and do not do much else. Others actually have thoughts and
points to introduce you hardly ever do anything other than insult
or attempt to marginalize people you disagree with.
Just more of the same.
Kelly
You continually disbelieve everything, but you don't have any alternative. This is anti-science of your kind. Nad you try to convince everyone else, with your KJ retorics, that nothing that science produce is worth believing in.
So you don't learn anything, it just goes on, forever, never getting anywhere... Hence, "here we go again".
With due respect, KJ, do you believe in 'time'?
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo, here we go again sort of implies you get involved in these
I've tried to reason with you, scientifically, but to no use. Whatever a pro-science tells you, you act as a anti-science. Now you even believe that there is no time berfore anyone has defined it...? This is anti-science. So you go again, and again, with your anti-science retorics.
You continually disbelieve everything, but you don't have any alternati ...[text shortened]... anywhere... Hence, "here we go again".
With due respect, KJ, do you believe in 'time'?
discussions which isn’t really the case, typically you only insult
and do not do much else. Others actually have thoughts and
points to introduce you hardly ever do anything other than insult
or attempt to marginalize people you disagree with.
Just more of the same.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWe both gave you examples of how time can stretch having nothing to do with instruments but with velocities and mass. I told you about the particles that make it to earth in spite of the fact that at lower velocities they explode into something else but at close to the speed of light their own time frame slows down enough that it makes it to the ground. I don't know why you can't understand something as simple as that. Andrew showed you the precession of mercury which has no other explanation than that time flows differently close to large masses.
You believe only physicists can define time? You have to be told
what your opinion is on this by someone else?
I have been saying that we can alter instruments, almost anyone can
do that! I have been saying because we know that is true, why is it
you assume it is not instrumentations being altered again, and accept
time itself is being altered?
Kelly
I also told you about GPS units in orbit that need correction for the time shifts of the clocks due to gravity change and velocity change. You countered with, oh the instruments are to blame but it has been proven over and over its not instrumentation, its a LOT more fundamental than simple problems with instruments. We just gave you three examples but you insist on a definition of time which I gave my best shot and you figure since we have a problem defining time it can't be measured. Well you can certainly use time to your advantage and you well know that, even if we can't define it to your satisfaction it can be measured but you refuse to accept that which boils down to the idea you reject all of this not because you wish to learn but because you wish to tear down the foundations of science so it fits your idea of biblical tales and calculations of people thousands of years later whom you for some reason take as gospel truth the idea the earth is 10000 years old. The bible does not even say that but you are taking the word of someone not in the bible just some assshole 2000 years later who wants to make a name for himself. Tell me this: Did men fly to and land on the moon?
Can you answer that simple question without qualification? Yes or no? Can you tell me that?
Originally posted by KellyJay..You believe only physicists can define time? . ..…
You believe only physicists can define time? You have to be told
what your opinion is on this by someone else?
I have been saying that we can alter instruments, almost anyone can
do that! I have been saying because we know that is true, why is it
you assume it is not instrumentations being altered again, and accept
time itself is being altered?
Kelly
So can YOU define time? You are not a physicist and I am sure you cannot define time -yes?
Some people know a lot more than we do.
..You have to be told what your opinion is on this by someone else?. ..…
I have not been told any definition of time and, therefore, I haven’t formed an opinion on what the correct definition of time just because “I was told by somebody else” because I was never told and I have no such opinion!
So how can it be true that “I have been told what my opinion is on this by someone else”?
…why is it you assume it is not instrumentations being altered again, and accept
time itself is being altered?…
How many time do I have to point out that argument of yours that “it is the instrumentations being altered and not time when time dilation effects are observed” (or words of that effect) has long been completely demolished. -you only have to look at Mercury’s wobble to observe those effects -so how could “instrumentations being altered” have anything to do with that?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAnd why would Einsteins formula work so well to pin down the cause and predicts actual real numbers that are verified in experiment after experiment, why would the predictions of the varying time flow work out so well mathematically if time were not a variable? You think somehow scientists have been totally fooled for the past 100 years?
[b] ..You believe only physicists can define time? . ..…
So can YOU define time? You are not a physicist and I am sure you cannot define time -yes?
Some people know a lot more than we do.
..You have to be told what your opinion is on this by someone else?. ..…
I have not been told any definition of time and, therefore, I h ...[text shortened]... erve those effects -so how could “instrumentations being altered” have anything to do with that?[/b]
Originally posted by sonhouseI think you have responded to my post by mistake when you meant to respond to KellyJay’s post 😀
And why would Einsteins formula work so well to pin down the cause and predicts actual real numbers that are verified in experiment after experiment, why would the predictions of the varying time flow work out so well mathematically if time were not a variable? You think somehow scientists have been totally fooled for the past 100 years?
Obviously I accept the fact that time is a variable 🙂
Hi sonhouse dude🙂
Just a notion my friend regardng the definition/ quality of Time:
Just remember good ole Aristotle, who conceived the natural world as the realm of Change. Every natural thing is subject to Change (qualitative and quantitative change as well as change in place). Change and Time are intimately related, and the variable of Time is explained in terms of Change (but the terms of Change cannot be explained in terms of Time because the notion of Change is more fundamental in his explanatory project). This account makes no reference, implicit or explicit, to Time. Only when this account is firmly in place does Aristotle develop a number of notions essential for his philosophy of Nature, including that of Time. So Change seems a quality dependent on Time since there is no Change without time, although Aristotle says nothing over this possibility (but due to the hypothesis that Time is a variable dependent on Change, it can be taken as an indirect argument for the assumption itself).
But as a matter of fact there is Time when we are aware that between two instants of time there can always be another instant of time, as sonhouse pal you pointed earlier. Aristotle’s Time is continuous, however this was caused due to his contention that Time has this structure because Change does. But Change has this structure because magnitude does (between any two points on a line there can always be another point). In this case the direction of the explanation is obviously from magnitude to Change and from Change to Time.
This is a non-temporal explanation of the “before” and “after” in Time along the same lines. The “before” and “after” in Time depends upon the “before” and “after” in Change, which in its turn depends upon the “before” and “after” in place. So the “before” and “after” of Time are related with the Temporal Asymmetry! This is, in my humble opinion, the philosophical quality of Time, although many modern philosophers they offer other hypotheses.-
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou have nothing to discuss than.
[b] ..You believe only physicists can define time? . ..…
So can YOU define time? You are not a physicist and I am sure you cannot define time -yes?
Some people know a lot more than we do.
..You have to be told what your opinion is on this by someone else?. ..…
I have not been told any definition of time and, therefore, I h ...[text shortened]... erve those effects -so how could “instrumentations being altered” have anything to do with that?[/b]
You do not have any idea what time is so how can you debate if is
effected by a stress or not?
Mercury's wobble and someone's measuring device could be apples
and oranges. Nothing has be completely demolished, you repeating
your stance isn't demolishing anything.
Kelly