Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Irv Finkleman wrote:
wrote:

Maybe time has changed over time?

I think that would only be from a humans point of
view, if that were the case.
MK

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

John Smith wrote:


Stupid thing to base time upon really, the rotation of any specific
sphere... Indeed, from such a reference point even the existence of
time, itself, is impossible to prove. Although time IS an effect of
motion, a second is NOT "time." A second only records the speed and
distance an object moves, in a rather round-about-measure.

There doesn't have to be any motion. A second is just an arbitrary
measurement given to a certain amount of elapsed "living time", by
some hairy legged man. An object could move zip in that second, or
it could move up to 186,000 miles if light. Of course, some will argue
light is not an object per say. Time is probably one of the most brain
warping things to think about. Time doesn't know it's time. Time
is never late. Tiiiiiiiiiiimmmmmee is on my side, yes it is...
Of course, man may well have needed to measure the speed or distance
of something to have a decent reference point when measuring time,
but thats their problem, not time. Time could care less cuz it's
infinite.
MK

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

John Smith wrote:


Stupid thing to base time upon really, the rotation of any specific
sphere... Indeed, from such a reference point even the existence of
time, itself, is impossible to prove. Although time IS an effect of
motion, a second is NOT "time." A second only records the speed and
distance an object moves, in a rather round-about-measure.

There doesn't have to be any motion. A second is just an arbitrary
measurement given to a certain amount of elapsed "living time", by
some hairy legged man. An object could move zip in that second, or
it could move up to 186,000 miles if light. Of course, some will argue
light is not an object per say. Time is probably one of the most brain
warping things to think about. Time doesn't know it's time. Time
is never late. Tiiiiiiiiiiimmmmmee is on my side, yes it is...
Of course, man may well have needed to measure the speed or distance
of something to have a decent reference point when measuring time,
but thats their problem, not time. Time could care less cuz it's
infinite.
MK

I have a favorite quote re time, don't even know who said it, it's ---"Time
is natures way of keeping everything from happening at the same time".

Harold
KD5SAK

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

John Smith wrote:
wrote:
John Smith wrote:

Stupid thing to base time upon really, the rotation of any specific
sphere... Indeed, from such a reference point even the existence of
time, itself, is impossible to prove. Although time IS an effect of
motion, a second is NOT "time." A second only records the speed and
distance an object moves, in a rather round-about-measure.




Ahhh. You make me remember my younger years. The world was a much
simpler place and I knew it all... I really hated to grow up...

JS

Judging from many of your previous posts, I have to wonder if you ever
did.
Why would I remind you of your younger years? I'm a 50 year semi old
fart.
What makes you think a "second" has to involve distance or a certain
speed? I can spend one second sitting in this chair, not moving, or
I can spend it in a car doing 70 mph. A second is still a second.
You disagree that time is infinite? I bet it is. There may be no worlds
left as you know it, and the stars may be in different places, but
"time"
will still be ticking away. Forever and ever and ever.
As far as "knowing it all", who said anything about me knowing
anything?
I'm just giving my opinions on time the way I see it. I may be fairly
close,
or I may be totally wet. But if you don't like my answers, it "time"
for
you to kiss my ass. I don't like a smartass. And your track record for
being one is proven over *time*.
MK

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

John Smith wrote:
You really want to propose that my yardstick grows longer (has no
relation to human body parts, I am sure! Hmm, could this be possibly be
desirable?) while my seconds grow shorter?

Both concepts are contained in Lorentz's
transformations.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

wrote:
Time is infinite the way I see it.
In it's true state, it has no bounderies. In a way, it doesn't
even exist.

Time falls into a group of concepts "discovered"
by man.

Did time exist before man existed?
Did God exist before man existed?
Did truth exist before man existed?
Did infinity exist before man existed?
The list is virtually endless.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

John Smith wrote:
The speed the earth rotates at, has changed.

Did seconds exist before the earth existed?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing the arguments though.

Take a look at Lorentz's transformation equations.
The physical dimension increases as velocity *decreases*.
So an increase in a physical dimension doesn't necessarily
imply an increase in velocity. When relativity is involved,
it implies a decrease in velocity. Thus, decreasing
velocity can cause a relativistic red-shift.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com