"John2005" <johnjmechanical@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129940017.023544.48520@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Hi Androcles,
|
| Thanks for your reply, and trying to help me understand. I think
(hope)
| I am seeing things a little more clear due to your reply.
|
| >John2005:
| >The oscillators can be considered an event in and of themselves.
|
| >Androcles:
| >Err... an oscillator is a physical object, not an event. The movement
| >of an oscillator is an event.
|
| John2005:
| Yes, I meant and should have said movement. Something must be
happening
| in order to use it has a time reference measure.
|
| >Androcles:
| >We define time as the repetitive regular oscillation of a physical
| >object. Doesn't matter what it is, it can be your heart, it can be
| >the Earth orbiting the sun.
| >We measure time by counting the oscillations.
| >Not all oscillators (such as your heart) are regular, they do not
| >make accurate clocks, so we carefully select regular oscillators
| >for measurement.
| >Androcles.
|
| John2005:
| Beyond the definition given above, does time exist as anything else ?

No.

| If so, what ?
|
| If time is defined as the repetitive regular oscillation of a physical
| object, then it is more than a mental concept, and there is no need to
| compare the oscillations of the physical object to anything else based
| on that definition. We can count the oscillations, and define specific
| oscillation counts, (i.e., so many oscillations equal one *second*, so
| many equal one *year* etc.) However, to put time in a context we can
| use, it seems we must compare the event of the objects oscillations
| (and the defined value of the oscillation count) to some other
event(s)
| or object(s). Otherwise, we just have an isolated oscillating object,
| which really serves no purpose by itself.

So do it, whatever floats your boat.
While John ran [moved] a mile, the shadow on the sundial moved a degree.
John is a fast runner, one mile/degree is 360 miles a day.
Miles are arbitrary, degrees are arbitrary.
We can as easily use kilometers and radians instead.
Why do you suppose the minute and second are measures of time as
well as of angle?

We have an isolated oscillating object, the Earth, we stick a pole in it
or plant a big rock so that nobody moves the pole, and use it to
measure time.
The world's oldest working clock, which is still working today and
has never lost or gained a picosecond in 3,500 years:
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/earthmysteries/EMStonehenge.jpg
That puts time in a context we can use. Very useful for knowing when
to sew and and when to reap, when to let the ram into the field
with the ewes, how long to let the cheese mature and the beer to
brew.
Pyramids make useful clocks too. Especially if you make sighting
holes in them.
http://doernenburg.alien.de/alternativ/orion/indexe.php
Those clocks have quit working now though, the pips around the
perimeter are missing. Some archeologist should go and look for them,
although I expect they were taken for building material.
If I were a mathematician living beside the Nile I'd get some help
to put up a big clock, carefully along it N-S, and become Pharoah.
I guess someone else thought of the idea first. It's amazing how
the phuckwits will bow down and worship a smart mathematician.


| We can create a clock that can keep track of the objects oscillation
| count for us, and translate the count into numerical values, thus
| providing a way to translate the number of oscillations, into
| pre-defined values, which we choose to call time. However, without
| making a comparison between the clock and some other event(s) or
| object(s), it's nothing more than a clock sitting on a shelf,
| transforming oscillations into values which we define, and which we
| choose to call time.

So you've a clock on the shelf... it is up to you what you do with it,
I don't really care how long you boil your eggs for, that's your choice.

| It seemed to me the comparison between the oscillating object, and
some
| other event or object under consideration, was time, since that seemed
| to be the only way to put time to use. The comparison seemed to be the
| important thing. However, if the oscillating object itself can be
| considered time, then time does exists as something other than a
mental
| concept under this definition, although not something that seems
| spatial.

Mass isn't spatial either <shrug>
Egg-timers are still useful if you like soft-boiled eggs.

| So, time is what we choose to call regular repetitive oscillations of
| an object, in the same way that we can choose to call the space
between
| two spaced apart objects, distance, and one hour is how we choose to
| define a certain oscillation count, in the same way that 6' is how we
| choose to define a certain distance ?

Sure, although the sub-units are arbitrary. The big units, year and day,
well,
not quite so arbitrary unless you live on Mars. They may be quite
so useful to a Martian, they'd have a different day and year.


| The space between two objects
| exists as more than a concept, and so does the oscillation event,
| relevant to the other objects or events under consideration. Length, &
| distance, seems spatial, but time does not, and perhaps that is part
of
| my problem. I have been trying to think of time as something spatial,
| *almost* a physical thing, and having problems with that.

It comes from indoctrination. We draw a time axis on a graph and
it gives the illusion of distance. Here's an example:
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html
There is no "distance" along the time axis; we use English badly as
well. How "long" did it take for the mass to move? How "long"
was it from one end of the movement of the mas to the other?
"Long" is used for duration and for length.
The scientist knows the difference, the student does too but
still confuses them.



|
| When something oscillates it generally alternates direction, or
| polarity, or it can translate or swing to one point, then back to the
| starting point. With respect to the oscillation itself, can moving to
| one point be considered one event, and moving back to the starting
| point be considered another event?

Of course it can.
You'll see a great deal of argument on this newsgroup and
sci.physics.relativity about One Way Light Speed and Two Way
Light Speed (OWLS and TWLS) because the huckster Einstein
defined time as
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Same phuckwit math, though.
Three events, emission, reflection, reception, two durations.
The idiocy of relativity is claiming these durations are equal.
Lots of phuckwits believe the clown and idolize him, he wanted
to be pharoah of physics.
"There are well-dressed foolish ideas, just as there are well-dressed
fools."--Nicolas Chamfort


| Or going in one direction event 1 ,
| and going in the opposite direction event 2 ?

Time doesn't go backwards.


| If so, can time be
| defined as that which separates events in the same way as space is
that
| which separates objects ?

We use "earlier" event and "later" event, sure, but we can't reverse
time.

| That which separates objects is based on
| space, and the assigned value of length, that which separates events
| is based on an oscillation event, that we use as a reference for what
| we call time, and that we measure by assigning values to various
| oscillation counts.
|
| One thing that comes to mind, how do we determine exactly how accurate
| or regular an oscillation is ?

Use a lot of other oscillators.

| Merc | Venus |Earth |Solar | Pulsar| Wheel |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| |88/ |88/ | 88 / | 88/ | 88/ |
Mercury | 1 | 225 | 365 | 1 | N | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| 225/ | | 225/ | 225/ |225/ | 225/ |
Venus | 88 | 1 | 365 | 1 | N | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| 365/ | 365/ | | 365/ | 365/ | 365/ |
Earth year| 88 | 225 | 1 | 1 | N | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| 1/ | 1/ | 1/ | | 1/ | 1/ |
Solar day| 88 | 225 | 365| 1 | N | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
Distant | N/ | N/ | N/ | N/ | | N/ |
Pulsar | 88 | 225 | 365| 1 | 1 | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| M/ | M/ | M/ | M/ | M/ | |
Balance | 88 | 225 | 365| 1 | N | 1 |
wheel |_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|


Each entry in the table is a ratio of counts between oscillators.
Change one oscillator, you change all its row and colum entries.
The remainder are unaffected. Time is universal.




If we compare the oscillation events of
| different objects, it seems we are just comparing clocks. How do we
| know what clock is most accurate, or what oscillation event is most
| accurate and/or regular ? If the oscillation event itself is time,
what
| event or standard do we compare it to in order to determine that it is
| consistent and accurate?

Use a lot of other oscillators:

| Merc | Venus |Earth |Solar | Pulsar| Wheel |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| |88/ |88/ | 88 / | 88/ | 88/ |
Mercury | 1 | 225 | 365 | 1 | N | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| 225/ | | 225/ | 225/ |225/ | 225/ |
Venus | 88 | 1 | 365 | 1 | N | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| 365/ | 365/ | | 365/ | 365/ | 365/ |
Earth year| 88 | 225 | 1 | 1 | N | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| 1/ | 1/ | 1/ | | 1/ | 1/ |
Solar day| 88 | 225 | 365| 1 | N | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
Distant | N/ | N/ | N/ | N/ | | N/ |
Pulsar | 88 | 225 | 365| 1 | 1 | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| M/ | M/ | M/ | M/ | M/ | |
Balance | 88 | 225 | 365| 1 | N | 1 |
wheel |_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|


Each entry in the table is a ratio of counts between oscillators.
Change one oscillator, you change all its row and colum entries.
The remainder are unaffected. Time is universal.

|
| >John2005:
| >If I take a tape measure, measure a board, and get 6', then deform or
| > alter the tape measure, measure that same board again and get 5'
11",
| > the board did not change, the tape measure changed.
|
| >Androcles:
| >That does not show that a length exists as anything other than a
| >mental concept.
| >Get my point?
|
| John2005:
| Yes, we assign a term *length* to the space between two points or
| objects, we can call this length whatever we want, it's just a mental
| concept tool. I was just trying to show that what we use as the
| measuring tool, is different than what is being measured, i.e., if
some
| force or event causes my clock to speed up, that does not necessarily
| mean time is moving faster, just that some force is making my clock
| oscillate faster.

If your clock speeds up it's either faulty or simply in the wrong
enviroment.
A candle clock will speed up in an oxygen-rich atmosphere.
A water clock will slow down on the moon, and won't operate at all
in temperatures below 0 or above 100 Celsius.




| >John2005:
| >Clocks are not time in my view, clocks are only tools we use to
| >implement the mental concept of time.
|
| >Androcles:
| >Fucking hell. It's NOT a mental concept. It's reality. Clocks
| >are instruments for measuring it, no more perfect than rods
| >for measuring distance.
|
| >John2005:
| >A clock is a time reference
| > measure, (it is an event in and of itself, the clock is oscillating
or
| > doing *something* at a defined rate),
|
| >Androcles:
| >A "defined rate" is time, it is not a mental concept.
|
| OK, you are winning me over, I can see that time can be defined as
| something that exists as other than a mental concept, but perhaps not
| something that is spatial.

Of course it's not spatial. Whatever gave you that idea?



| However, without oscillation, does time
| exist ? Without motion or some event, does time exist ?

Question is moot. Something somewhere is always oscillating.


|
| I would appreciate your help with the following questions that come to
| mind:
|
| Can time speed up or slow down, or is it always constant ?

Always constant.

| Does
| approaching the speed of light change time ?

No. That crap was invented by Einstein the huckster who wanted
to be the pharoah of physics.
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Same phuckwit math, though.

Here's how a confidence trickster persuades the gullible:
"In agreement with experience" [whose experience?] we ASSUME
the quantity 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c.
Buy that, suckers!
Is it true?
A and B are the end points of the distance x, right?
t'A is the INSTANT light leaves A, tA is the INSTANT the light
returns to A.
When I went to school, (x +(-x))/ (t'A-tA) = 0.
So who has the EXPERIENCE of 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c?
I call that phuckwit math.
You've got three choices.
1) Einstein was an idiot, Androcles is smart.
2) Einstein was a huckster, Androcles is smart.
3) Einstein was a brilliant genius, you are an idiot and a sucker.

Einstein was not an idiot. He know EXACTLY what he was doing.
We call it crime.
He was not the first, Ptolemy beat him to it.
The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from
Newton in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-

This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by
a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the
ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind
of fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and
history.

Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation
claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-

[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that
they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the
theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so
that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his
theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice
is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html


| Does time posses a force or energy ?

No.

| Does time cause events to happen ?

No.

If so, how does time cause events or
| change to occur ?
|
| Are space and time united ?

No.

| Can time be warped or distorted via some force ?
|

No.

| Are we moving along a timeline ?

In a sense, yes. We can draw a time line on a graph.

|
| Is *time travel* plausible, as shown in sci-fi movies, whereby a
person
| travels 10 years into the future in a few seconds ?

No. It violates conservation.

Coin at 2 o'clock.
Coin vanishes, goes to the future at 3 o'clock, reappears.
No coin between 2 o'clock and 3 o'clock.
Coin at 2 o'clock.
Coin vanishes, goes to the past at 1 o'clock, arrives beside
itself. Two coins between 1 o'clock and 2' oclock.


| Thanks again for your help, I appreciate it.
| John

You are welcome. Beware phuckwits and con-artists.
Phuckwits are easy to spot.
Con-artists not quite so easy unless you are smarter. All
con-artists are Mr. Nice-Guy, they have to be to be successful.
I'm not Mr. Nice-Guy, I'm a wicked Physics Cop and Chief
Prosecutor of Einstein.
Here are some con-artists and thugs to look out for:
Andersen,
Baez,
Bielawski,
Draper,
Fischer,
Kolker,
Nieminen,
Poe,
Polasek,
Roberts,
Smith,
Van der moortel.

Androcles.