John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
...
Shrug.
One defines a standard and works with the standard.
If you want to define a standard unit of time called the glorksnopes,
be my guest.
Jim:
One last try, then I give up. It is much worse than that, as you are
all ready assuming that time exists. Most of us fall error to this. It
certainly seems to exist because how else would we get to our
appointments on "time."
Babble.
What we do is confuse time with movement. Certainly you can see that
our earth time is based solely on movement, the spinning of the earth.
Indeed, we cannot "measure time" if we don't see something moving. Even
your watch depends on movement, either the watch spring driving spinning
gears, or the movement of electrons in its tiny oscillator.
Utter nonsense.
Time on Earth hasn't been based on the spinning of the Earth for
40 years.
You are about 300 years behind the times.
Take away movement and you take away our time ...
Utter nonsense.
But, there could be a "real time." A time which does not depend upon
movement. Indeed, there is good indication that it may exist. As, the
big bang would have needed time to have happened in (or, something akin
to it.) Otherwise, the big bang IS time and time is only movement. I
know, at first it appears rather a circular argument--takes a bit of
getting used to.
Babbling word salad.
Just think about it from "time to time" (or, as you are moving about
grin) ... no reply is necessary.
Regards,
JS
Welcome to the 17th century.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.