What is time?

[Qfwfq]

Sorry Dick, I remember you voicing distaste for philosophical works, but:

Originally Posted by Doctordick

One concept of time is the apparent phenomena experienced by the entity proceeding into the future (the concept of time consistent with the physical laws governing the detailed behavior of that entity: his biological clock if the entity is living or the physical clock governing the phenomena if the entity is not living)

The second concept of time is "being somewhere at a particular time" (the concept of time as a parameter which determines the possibility of two different entities interacting: they have to be at the same place at the same "time").

although differing from Kant's remarks, is much in the topic of his transcendental aesthetics. Of course you're free to disagree with him and it may seem old hat at first glance but I find his reflections on time and space compatible with relativity providing one understands them as being the observer's proper time and spatial submanifold.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Then, simple universal momentum quantization in that fourth dimension (which yields what appears to be mass) projects out the visibility of that dimension (via Heisenberg uncertainty) and yields exactly the same (in detail) "pseudo relativistic phenomena" Einstein's relativity was invented to explain!

Not sure what you mean exactly but does it match up with Lorentz invariance?

From the conflict between general relativistic phenomena and quantum mechanics:

Originally Posted by Doctordick

In the same vein, I hold that Einstein’s error (an error which has plagued science for almost 100 years already) was that he assumed clocks measured time.

Einstein's 1905 papers had a very phenomenological approach but Minkowski's was geometrical. I haven't yet read further I'll just ask if you find that inconsistent too, and where?

[Qfwfq]

Wait, I found:

Originally Posted by Dick's webpage

What he missed was that they could not be used to define the boundary between the past and the future.

Remember the light coooooooooone!

The boundary isn't a set of zero measure but it's a boundary. Before/after is undefined at spacelike intervals but is defined at timelike ones. It's a limitation on definability but not a removal. I'm not saying there's no problem with quantum formalism, Born's interpretation runs into the known difficulties e. g. with singlet states but Bell argued around this.

Originally Posted by Dick's webpage

If no object may follow such a path, why does Einstein's proposed geometry of the universe include such a path?

Don't call it a path, call it an interval. Travelling along it would be superluminal motion, this is a well known point of SR with the causality paradox, the very reason they say ya can't get faster than light.

Originally Posted by Dick's webpage

a point seldom pointed out by any authority on relativity

many textbooks include the integral for proper time of a particle in accelerated motion. The next paragraph baffles me and I can't go much further till I get home, I saved your page to the purpose.

[InfiniteNow]

Let's put this thing to bed. DoctorDick, I would like to retract my comments. If you've put me on your Ignore list, well, cheers and best wishes. I took offense to your tone, and to calling the whole forum the things you did, and reacted in a way to call attention to this. However, you have a lot to share, and I appreciate your insight, and meant no serious offense.

Cheers... and nothing but love.


Now... let's get back on point...

[InfiniteNow]

Let's try getting this bad boy back on track...

As the previous 133 posts (well... maybe minus just a few... ) clearly demonstrate, we each have our own unique view of time. However, there is, as is usally the case, significant overlap with each view.

If we could bring this overlap into better focus perhaps the rest would come out on it's own... as an emmergent property.

Perhaps the most accurate answer is "Time is a concept that by it's very nature is nearly impossible to define in a such a way that everyone not only agrees but understands. It, like love, means something somewhat different to us all yet has a sense of sameness despite this."

But that's too mushy. Let's figure this thing out as only we can.


What is time... to a child?
What is time... to mathemetician?
What is time... to a philosopher?
What is time... to a deceased life?

What is time... to you?

[Racoon]

What is time???

Again, Time is Money!

Basic economics... Nothing else you need to know

Great discussion by the way. Suppose I'd better stay OUT of the way!

[BluesMan]

So if money is an exchange for work.

This means time is Work.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Racoon

What is time???

Again, Time is Money!

Basic economics... Nothing else you need to know

Great discussion by the way. Suppose I'd better stay OUT of the way!

So time is a common medium of exchange which acts as a legal tender... Never thought of it that way myself, but interesting possibility indeed.

Can time be traded?

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

So time is a common medium of exchange which acts as a legal tender... Never thought of it that way myself, but interesting possibility indeed.

Can time be traded?

I work for my employer. I trade my TIME and skills for wages.

Bill

[Turtle]

___Time is what it takes for me to mention Buckminster Fuller's view of time. I have read it again & again for the first time, & time after time it makes more sense to take the time to do so.


Buckminster Fuller

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synerg...00.html#530.10

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

I work for my employer. I trade my TIME and skills for wages.

Bill

It is a bit of an issue of semantics, as tasks are conducted over time, but is it not your tasks which are traded for wages?

It's not like your boss says, "Hey, Bill, I will give you $20 for 20 minutes. Agreed?" They say, "I wll give you $20 for filing this, training them, and organizing that..."

Is the distinction necessary, or is it all the same thing? Tasks and time?