Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Shadow1, Mar 31, 2010.
I say time does exist although I hate it because it is always against me.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Look at your second sentence:
"A long long time ago some folk..."
Where is the unit of measure? Long?
So you haven't bothered to read any other posts?
Time is a fundamental to our perceptions, experience and physics. And you claim there's "no support"? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I see you missed the word "support" in my posts.
But can't most of your "objections" also apply to distance?
Huh? Such as?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Support, proof = evidence. What does time represent?
I apologize for the ambiguity in my previous statement. I'll keep this one short:
That about sum up this thread? Time exists. We know it does. This is one of those few things that physicists are absolutely sure of. We live in four dimensions. Three of space and one of time. I mean, even before we homo sapiens were walking upright time existed. Hydrogen and helium were condensing and forming stars, other heavy elements were coalescing into planets. And this all happened over a very long PERIOD OF TIME. Asking whether or not time exists is not "philosophical" (for lack of better word) to any degree, it's just stupid. Frankly I don't know why this thread exists. Time exists. Period.
You're confused. Evidence (or support) for a stance is not proof. Merely corroboration.
What does length represent?
I'm not sure what you mean by the question.
Does time represent itself i.e. stand alone or does it always have to have some sort of a partner like distance at all times so it can be real?
Which also applies to the other dimensions.
It depends (again) on what you mean by "stand alone". Can it be isolated as a dimension in the real world? Probably not.
Can it be operated on in a mathematical equation as a separate (without considering the other dimensions) property? Most likely.
Stand alone-Can it stand-up and be scrutinized without help from another entity?
Exactly as much as any of the other dimensions.
You have just put time in the category of an abstract concept. Thank you.
Like any other dimension?
Keep waffling incoherently. It's amusing.
So let me get this straight, you are putting time in the same category as the 3 spatial dimensions, correct, not as a mathematical abstraction?
Haven't I already said that time is more simply a mathematical abstraction?
But it's not a spacial dimension. Maybe people would have fewer problems with it if it were.
so, what's your explenation of time?
You'll have to be more specific.
What do you mean by "explanation"?
How would you "explain" length?
Length-depending on postioning is the longest dimension of an object.
Length is the longest dimension of an object?
You're suffering from some confusion surely.
How do you explain length as a dimension?
It's quite simple: time is the dimension in which objects experience duration. Or the dimension in which change occurs.
Ehhhh! Wrong again. You keep calling time a dimension and clearly it is not. Oh! By-the-way...length is one of the true dimensions. I'm just chasing rainbows here...Fin
Clearly you can't actually support that statement.
Length is one the spacial dimensions.
Separate names with a comma.