Ask yourself again... what is time? If you think it is the strokes of the hand of the clock that hangs on the wall and if you think this is what ''makes time real,'' then you're not the smartest bush in the fields.
Huh? Of course clocks were invented. So were balance scales. What's your point? You yourself correctly pointed out that time is what clocks measure.
Of course... I have to explain myself don't I. You can never just catch on? The scales where invented but it is no more responsible for objects experiencing weight than a clock is responsible for the perception of time!
Human perception of time and space is based on cells within the hippocampus region of the brain. The hippocampus is the memory center of the brain involved in the read/write processes of the brain into the cerebral matter. Time and space were already coded in the brain, way before humans made up concepts to describe these. Humans simply projected this internal mechanism into the environment, using the biology of the hippocampus as a template. We substitute the clock, meter stick and GPS, for the hippocampus pacer and placer cells. We also add time and place stamps, to data, just like the hippocampus has done for millions of years What I think is interesting, is the brain naturally evolved ways to deals with these two variables as a part of evolution, long before science defined them for human consciousness. We copied this template via projection, where projection is when, what is inside, but not fully conscious, is made conscious by placing it outside, so it can be seen and investigated. As an analogy of projection, picture a movie that is projecting through the mind's eye, superimposed upon reality. We see a composite of reality and projection, with the projection overlay, the feature from which science externalized the hippocampus time and place cells into equations. It has to agree with the read/write process of the brain or it would appear off. The reason all humans can see the same equations and theories is because we all have the same human DNA and human hippocampus. This creates the impression of universal truth. If you understand the brain there is a way to speed up the process of theory. The approach I took was since humans often project from internal processes, if we know the internal processes, we can anticipate what will be collectively acceptable. Any good theory of time has to reflect the hippocampus or else there would be no natural standard from which we could have the intuition of universal. The article below shows that the hippocampus can vary time; speeds up to slows down, which is included via relativity. The projection of relativity could have been anticipated. Einstein saw the projection first and found a way to externalize it. From Popular Science; http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-08/time-cells-brain-keep-track-events-firing-time-goes
I've already explained this myself. Not so much the memory associated with time, though memory is required for a coherent linear recording of events. Hence, why our sense of directionality and our sense of time is more than important for consciousness! In fact, I believe our sense of time is absolutely required for our complex neural network. But our sense of time and actually thinking it has some real application in the world is what is at dispute. I think the short term sense of time is dictated by the gene regulator, the Suprachiasmatic nucleus. There is also one that moderates our long sense of time as well, so I am totally aware about this being ''coded'' within us. I actually believe we need this illusion for consciousness to have any sanity for what would consciousness be without a sense of time?
I suppose you think length didn't exsist before the ruler was invented.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Think about it Reiku/agency/jamesp/Aethelwulf….Trapped/Nightshift.
Agreed! Maybe you misunderstood my use of the word "makes". Try again with this: The fact that clocks measure time is what proves that time exists. If that doesn't fix your understanding then you must just be stepping on your own tongue again. I think you are too wrapped up in your flaming/trolling and forgot what your point was. If you tried behaving like a respectable adult, this might go better and you might learn something.
No that doesn't ''prove'' a thing. The only thing it proves is that the clock was designed to change. There is no time, there is only change. A clock was designed to measure a ''duration'' but in that ''duration'' there is only a measure of change associated to the clock.
What is time? From 'The Meaning of Relativity', Albert Einstein, 1956: page 1. "The experiences of an individual appear to us arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criteria of "earlier" and "later", which cannot be analysed further. There exists, therefore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time." page 31. "The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space coordinates with the time coordinate." page 32. "Finally, with Minkowski, we introduce in place of the real time co-ordinate l=ct, the imaginary time co-ordinate..." From "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", A. Einstein, June 30 1905: par 1. ``The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events." The author of SR didn't believe or promote the idea of an objective time. In contrast, he developed the idea of clock time or time measurement as being motion dependent! It was Minkowski who expressed the time variable as a mathematical 'dimension', but solely for mathematical purposes, as noted above. Subjective time requires memory as mentioned in the first quote, which allows a comparison of a current state to a previous state for any changes, which lends itself to an interpretation of time flowing. Consider one of the greatest misnomers ever used, 'motion pictures' or 'movies', where a person observes a sequence of still photos and the mind melds them to produce moving objects where there is no motion. Consider the fact that people waking from a comatose state, have no memory of how much elapsed time, whether hrs, days, or even years. The simplest argument against the arrow of time, time is a scalar, a magnitude with no direction. The operational definition of assigning a time to an event as mentioned by A.E. in the 1905 paper is essentially what it is, and how it's been done since humans appeared. It is a correspondence convention, i.e., assigning events of interest to standard clock events, a measure and ordering of activity, with 'time' always increasing/accumulating. It is an accounting scheme developed out of practical necessity, for human activities like agriculture, business, travel, science, etc. The unit of measure for time initially referred to relative positions of astronomical objects, stars, sun, and moon, which implies earth rotations and earth orbits. The year equates to the periodic motion of the earth relative to the sun, the month, the moon relative to the earth, and the day, the earth rotation relative to the stars. All units of time are by definition, involving spatial motion or distance. The clock further divides the day into smaller units of measure. The reference in the 1905 paper of the watch hand to a position on the watch face involves nothing more than counting hand cycles (hand motion of specific distances representing subdivisions of a day). Finally, with the present day light clock, with internal light oscillations between an emitter and a mirror spaced a distance d, the time t represents a quantity of light motion equal to 2kdc, i.e. a distance labeled as 'time'. In the world of quantum physics, suppose a particle can have three states, a, b, and c. Suppose the first three observations record abc, and the second three record cba. Did time 'flow' backward? No, and we have proof, since the 'time' of each observation was recorded. It was just a reversed sequence. Flipping a coin is governed by the rules of physics, yet the results are independent of time. The probability of H or T is always 1/2. If an object is dropped from a height, next to a vertical measuring stick, and recorded on video, analysis of the video allows a mathematical relation to be formulated between the time stamp of each frame and the height of the object, like (h' = h -.5gt^2). Notice that verification of the experiment requires a clock, since measurement is the modus operandi of science. Most importantly notice, time does not cause the object to fall, but g, gravity does. Nothing like an objective 'time' has yet been discovered, but that doesn't imply it doesn't exist. Consider all the 'fundamental' particles' that were discovered, once the appropriate experiment was designed.
At first it was something wrong with the math, because the morons cannot tell notation differences, or even know about the basics of the Langrangian. Then they start arguing that time must be real, because clocks measure it. These kinds of arguments are pointless and while your post accurately represents what I have been talking about all along, they will still find something else to moan about. They're just doing it to be trolls. Only I will appreciate what you post is saying because I've been trying to tell these guys relativity is on my side in the interpretation of things but they never listen.
It's true actually, the analogy given by Russ isn't exactly accurate, because there is direct evidence of weight and also of length. There is none of time.
You said "Direct evidence of weight and also of length." When was that evidence collected? Answer that and you have your direct evidence of time.
And we have direct evidence of time also...the simple fact that it is not absolute assures that fact...the same of course applies to space, space/time, gravity, matter. energy...... You do know where they all came from, don't you?
Empirical evidence supports systems have weight, because they exert a force. We have evidence of length because we can measure separation (however this may not be a fundamental principle). I don't see your point.
Are you not able to refute what I have said? Is this beyond your comprehension, just as your non comprehension re time is beyond your understanding? That's OK...keep wallowing in your ignorance.
"Measure". This is how you've "Trapped" yourself with your own logic. You accept that measuring length (with manmade instruments) proves it exists, but don't accept that measuring time proves it exists.
Yes, man made instruments like a ruler measures a length. However, we know lengths exist, we see them everyday. You can't see time, so there are big differences between the two. Besides, are you just ignoring what Einstein said himself, the poster above got it right. Einstein never accepted time as an objective phenomenon. His general theory completely treats time as frozen. Barbour has simply reinforced this theoretical idea and brought with it some new insights. If you can't get your head around the idea, that there can be clocks but there doesn't have to be time, then you are just wasting my time.
