Jump to content
scherado

'Time': The Civilizational Edifice and Handmaiden of Matter

Recommended Posts

We can dispense with that conception of 'Time' which we have built an entire civilization upon, our relationship to that construction. This thread is not about that subject.

I do not know the exact date of this essay from which I provide an excerpt below. Albert Einstein was asked to "write something for The Times on relativity."

The title is: What Is The Theory of Relativity?

From the book Essays in Science, published 1934, by Albert Einstein, page 53-54:

We can distinguish various kinds of theories in physics. Most of them are constructive. 
They attempt to build up a picture of the more complex phenomena out of the materials 
of a relatively simple formal scheme which they start out. Thus the kinetic theory of 
gases seeks to reduce mechanical, thermal and diffusional process to movements 
of molecules--i.e., to build them up out of the hypothesis of molecular motion. 
When we say that we have succeeded in understanding a group of natural processes,
we invariably mean that a constructive theory has been found which covers the 
processes in question.

Along with this most important class of theories there exists a second, which 
I will call "principle-theories." These employ the analytic, not the synthetic 
method. The elements which form their basis and starting-point are not hypothetically 
constructed but empirically discovered ones, general characteristics of natural processes, 
principles that give rise to mathematically formulated criteria which the separate 
processes or the theoretical representations of them have to satisfy. Thus the science 
of thermodynamics seeks by analytical means to deduce necessary connections, which separate 
events have to satisfy, from the universally experienced fact that perpetual motion is impossible.

The Advantages of the constructive theory are completeness, adaptability and clearness, those of 
the principle theory are logical perfection and security of the foundations.

The theory of relativity belongs to the latter class. In order to grasp its nature, ...[STOP]


From this post of the locked thread:

scherado said:

My question requires one to know the nature of 'time'.


.
I am using the word "nature" as it is being employed by Einstein in the essay.

From this post in the locked thread:

scherado said:

What is the basis for any expression of duration?


I am using "duration" as equivalent to "elapsed time".

 

Edited by scherado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finally it's here!  I will finally understand what the true "nature of time" is! Today I shed my sheeple wool of my eyes to let the light in.
 
Quote

 

18 hours ago, scherado said:

I have told the participants in the "0 DIV 0" thread that I will share my answer in one day.

 

 

 

Quote

Strange: I bet they can hardly wait. Personally, I have cancelled all my appointments for tomorrow to be sure I don't miss it.

Good call Strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, scherado said:

We can dispense with that conception of 'Time' which we have built an entire civilization upon, our relationship to that construction.

1. The clause "our relationship to that construction" does not parse with the rest of the sentence. Consequently it is not possible to know what you meant by it.

2. Please provide evidence that we have built an entire civilisation upon a conception of time.

3. If this thread is not about that subject then why mention it at all?

4. Then what is this thread about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, scherado said:

I am using the word "nature" as it is being employed by Einstein in the essay.

And are you ready now, Oh Great One, to reveal what is the The Nature Of Time? Your disciples await!

7 hours ago, scherado said:

I am using "duration" as equivalent to "elapsed time".

But what does that mean if we do away with the notion of time, as you suggest in your opening sentence. That "duration" just means "elapsed"?

Maybe you could ask the mods to change the forum software so it doesn't mark every post with the time it was posted; that must be rather an embarrassment in a thread that wants to dispense with time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Silvestru said:
Finally it's here!  I will finally understand what the true "nature of time" is! Today I shed my sheeple wool of my eyes to let the light in.

 18 hours ago, scherado said:

I have told the participants in the "0 DIV 0" thread that I will share my answer in one day.


      Quote

    Strange: I bet they can hardly wait. Personally, I have cancelled all my appointments for tomorrow to be sure I don't miss it.

Strange post

Good call Strange.

I answered the question in 5 words yesterday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Strange said:

And are you ready now, Oh Great One, to reveal what is the The Nature Of Time? Your disciples await!

But what does that mean if we do away with the notion of time, as you suggest in your opening sentence. That "duration" just means "elapsed"?

....

Do you want to reconsider the text I highlighted in red?

I will inform you in advance--for your information and nothing more--that your reply to this question will determine whether you will be added to my ignore list.

Do you understand the question?

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

And here is me thinking this thread was about The Nature Of Time.

Silly me.

I answered the question in 5 words yesterday

Can anyone tell me the connection between the nature of time and division by zero?

Edited by scherado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Infinity(time) and 0 are not values! By God, how have I been so blind?

This is my 200'th post and with it, I not only become an Atom by Rank but I feel I become a man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, scherado said:

Do you want to reconsider the text I highlighted in red?

I will inform you in advance--for your information and nothing more--that your reply to this question will determine whether you will be added to my ignore list.

Do you understand the question?

For once, I do understand the question. Well done.

Do I want to reconsider my question? No, why should I? You said "We can dispense with that conception of 'Time'" and I asked what the consequences of doing that would be. It seems a reasonable question. But feel free to ignore it.

Now, if you had asked if I wanted to reconsider the following sentence then I would have been happy to withdraw the facetious comment, if it meant you might get to the point. 

23 minutes ago, scherado said:

Can anyone tell me the connection between the nature of time and division by zero?

I am now literally wetting myself with anticipation.

Obviously you are not going to reveal the Great Secret now. But can you give us a hint. Will it be within the next 24 hours? Or will you just provide us with another cryptic hint?

I will assume that you have put me on ignore and will no longer ask you any direct questions. But I reserve the right to continue making sarcastic comments about your increasingly incoherent and nonsensical posts.

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, scherado said:

Can anyone tell me the connection between the nature of time and division by zero?

 

3 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Both Infinity(time) and 0 are not values! By God, how have I been so blind?

I can see the entire electromagnetic spectrum now and those must be atoms, little clouds of possibility. Einstein couldn't connect the gravitational force to the other three, but if he could have seen this... It's so obvious. The fundamental forces are yoked by consciousness. Everything's connected. Everyone. And this how he sees things all the time. Every day. 
It's a cruel joke. The mechanistic clockwork of reality hinging on a precious impossible defiance of entropy, on life. And the clockwork doesn't care. It's like - Like it's all just us, in here together. (Lex Luthor)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scherado said:

I can't delete this post.

 

Edited by scherado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scherado,

Your posts are incomprehensible.

Your attitude is rude.

Your logic is absent.

You are wasting bandwidth.

 

There are only a few days left, but I think we can safely award you Troll of the Month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Area54 said:

1. The clause "our relationship to that construction" does not parse with the rest of the sentence. Consequently it is not possible to know what you meant by it.

2. Please provide evidence that we have built an entire civilisation upon a conception of time.

3. If this thread is not about that subject then why mention it at all?

4. Then what is this thread about?

scherado said:

We can dispense with that conception of 'Time' which we have built an entire civilization upon, our relationship to that construction. This thread is not about that subject.

1.Try this: We can dispense with that conception of 'Time' which we have built an entire civilization upon, that is, our relationship to that construction. This thread is not about that aspect of 'Time' which I call the Edifice of Civilization. (The construction is comprised of: second, minute, hour, day, month, year, bus, train and plane schedules, play dates, and so on.) Therefore, the trailing clause of that sentence applies.

2. Please see the parenthetical in 1. (I can't believe you typed #2, it having the odor of "number 2", notwithstanding.)

3. I mention it to dispense with it in the beginning of the thread instead of dealing with it throughout the thread.

4. As stated explicitly, perhaps, exquisitely in the OP (Me):

What is the basis for any expression of duration?

My question requires one to know the nature of 'time'.

I am using the word "nature" as it is being employed by Einstein in the essay.

I am using "duration" as equivalent to "elapsed time".

Edited by scherado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, scherado said:

 

 

 

That really wasn't worth repeating. You didn't even attempt to fix the grammar.

Ditto, the following posts. Repeating incoherent nonsense doesn't make it any less incoherent.

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Strange said:

For once, I do understand the question. Well done.

Do I want to reconsider my question? No, why should I? You said "We can dispense with that conception of 'Time'" and I asked what the consequences of doing that would be. It seems a reasonable question. But feel free to ignore it.

Now, if you had asked if I wanted to reconsider the following sentence then I would have been happy to withdraw the facetious comment, if it meant you might get to the point. 

I am now literally wetting myself with anticipation.

Obviously you are not going to reveal the Great Secret now. But can you give us a hint. Will it be within the next 24 hours? Or will you just provide us with another cryptic hint?

I will assume ...

You have assumed correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, scherado said:

You have assumed correctly.

Good.

I also assume that your refusal to answer simple, direct questions is because you are a troll.

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scherado, thank you for your reply. I know I have good reading comprehension skills. Consequently the problem here is not me, but you. You may have a radicaland important idea, but you are presently unable to communicate it. For your own peace of mind I suggest you work on your communication skills before trying challenge the world. Please don't waste time replying. I shall not be wasting any more time on your posts.

Edit: I should inform you I have reported this thread and suggested it be locked and placed in the Trash Can. I've also suggested, in your own interest, that you be banned.

Edited by Area54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Area54 said:

scherado, thank you for your reply. I know I have good reading comprehension skills. Consequently the problem hear is not me, but you. You may have a radicaland important idea, but you are presently unable to communicate it. For your own peace of mind I suggest you work on your communication skills before trying challenge the world. Please don't waste time replying. I shall not be wasting any more time on your posts.

Thank you for not wasting any more of my time. I will take your advice with respect to communication.

Edited by scherado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

In order to grasp its nature, one needs first of all to become acquainted with the principles on which it is based.

If it is necessary for the purpose of describing nature, to make use of a coordinate system arbitrarily introduced by us, then the choice of its state of motion ought to be subject to no restriction; the laws ought to be entirely independent of this choice. (Einstein)

 

It all makes sense now... 
I'm just messing around. This thread should probably be closed or at least moved from the Physics section. I think it would even sully the Speculation section as it reeks of the irrational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

 

I can see the entire electromagnetic spectrum now and those must be atoms, little clouds of possibility. Einstein couldn't connect the gravitational force to the other three, but if he could have seen this... It's so obvious. The fundamental forces are yoked by consciousness. Everything's connected. ....

I recommend the book The Perfect Theory by Pedro G. Ferreira. It gives a history of General Relativity.

10 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

It all makes sense now... 
I'm just messing around. This thread should probably be closed or at least moved from the Physics section. I think it would even sully the Speculation section as it reeks of the irrational.

I placed it within the "Relativity" section as it is a thread about the nature of 'Time'. Of course, we approach the subject from our observations of the subject. Time, as it exists and our interpretations of our myriad observations, scientific and personal, have been and will remain the subject of physicists, I suspect, forever. I don't see any progress or change in the conception of 'Time' as it has always been understood for hundreds of years. The mechanical clock mocks perpetual motion--when it is wound properly--to serve a purpose. The "atomic" clock employs another physical process--to serve a purpose.

This is the purpose of this thread.

Edited by scherado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Moved out of relativity, since there is no discussion of relativity going on.

It's not helpful to tell people what the thread isn't about. But I can't tell what it is about. Perhaps you can clear that up? With the next post?

_____

To everyone: Calling someone a troll, or some similar remark, is not helpful. (It is, in fact, off-topic) If a thread needs attention, use the report post function.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

Moved out of relativity, since there is no discussion of relativity going on.

It's not helpful to tell people what the thread isn't about. But I can't tell what it is about. Perhaps you can clear that up? With the next post?

_____

To everyone: Calling someone a troll, or some similar remark, is not helpful. (It is, in fact, off-topic) If a thread needs attention, use the report post function.

 

I provide an answer just prior to your post. And I don't believe that you don't know what it is about.

Edited by scherado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, scherado said:

I don't see any progress or change in the conception of 'Time' as it has always been understood for hundreds of years.

I would have thought that the change from a concept of universal, absolute time to that of time being observer dependent was a not insignificant change.

Also, there has never been a single definition or understanding of time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, scherado said:

I provide an answer just prior to your post. And I don't believe that you don't know what it is about.

!

Moderator Note

A. Your edit was not present when I opened the thread, so I did not, in fact, know what your point was. 

B. I don't appreciate the insinuation that I lied.

C. You are continuing your habit of not actually posting the salient information, and instead telling us what you intend to post at some later time. That's not going to fly. This is not the venue for that. 

D. As such, this is closed. When you are ready to post what your actual position is (i.e. tell us your view on what the nature of time is) then you may open a new thread here in speculations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.