wrote:
Irv Finkleman wrote:
Maybe time has changed over time?

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

Velocity = length/time. Length changes with velocity.
Time changes with velocity. What's wrong with this
picture?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:
You disagree that time is infinite? I bet it is.

Time presently comes to a standstill and ceases to
exist in the black hole at the middle of our Milky
Way galaxy.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Time presently comes to a standstill and ceases to
exist in the black hole at the middle of our Milky
Way galaxy.

I thought chewy nougat was in the center of a Milky Way

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

Did seconds exist before the earth existed?

Cecil:

Seconds probably came into existence the first time, the first man/woman
noticed that sand falling though a narrow opening could be useful in
measuring motion and distance (specifically the rotation of the earth in
the heavens--is my guess. But, I do admit earlier devices--suns
movement, moons movement, heavens movement, movement of the shadow from
a stick, etc.)

But, you already knew that... But, if you are speaking of "Universal
Time Frame" seconds--I don't believe anyone claims to have detected
them--yet, I wonder about the UTF with no formed opinion.

Now, what argument do you propose for me enjoy thinking about?

JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

Cecil:

Lorentz would ONLY plug time into an equation because he did NOT know
and understand the real workings of the ether, and, strangely enough,
the "quaint notion" of earth time can be used (a mixture of movement and
distance.) In much the same way, 377 ohms (the impedance of ether)
stands for a mathematical term which can be accounted for with NO other
term(s), but obviously speaks to some unknown quality/law/property of
the ether...

But, once again, you already knew that...

JS

John Smith wrote:
Now, what argument do you propose for me enjoy thinking about?

Consider that time is an illusion invented by man
and that what we experience as passing time is
simply change. One second is literally the *change*
in rotation of the earth by a physical one second.
That's all there is to the concept of time.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Now, what argument do you propose for me enjoy thinking about?

Consider that time is an illusion invented by man
and that what we experience as passing time is
simply change. One second is literally the *change*
in rotation of the earth by a physical one second.
That's all there is to the concept of time.

Exactly, I love to argue, but when you are right, you are right.

I am sure our next argument is just coming to the horizon.

JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

Cecil:

I have wondered on some of your thoughts. Let me attempt to kludge
together an example to show how so:

For one example, the same amateurs which accept the notion of "eternity"
and therefore time--a method to measure it and know-of-it by, without
question, will also argue that a box in space contains ABSOLUTELY
nothing; yet, they claim time exists and the box which contains nothing
is being held subject to times qualities and laws. However, an argument
could be made, what sense would time make if it measured nothing,
indeed, how could time possibly exist as we think of it (can occur
without need for motion and/or distance?) If you were in that box time
itself would cease to exist and but obviously we have been there and our
notion of time does NOT stop, but then, that only proves movement and
distance...

The point being, time CANNOT exist AND a box in space be
TRULY/ABSOLUTELY empty. If you believe in time, you already have made
an argument for the ether. (However, no "proof" is absolutlely
established, as time could exist AND the box can contain ether, which is
the crux of it all...)

Imagine the "empty box" out in space, a VERY LONG time ago, and a bunch
of minds are around it arguing if it is truly empty or not. Then
imagine the big bang theory is not only possible, but it happens right
before your eyes in the space contained within the box (empty space),
would those minds still be arguing about the ether being impossible,
what "clock" would they have timed that bang with?

What say you?

JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.


Are you talking about displacement when you refer to physical dimension?

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Cecil Moore wrote:

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.


Did Endless lists exist before man existed? ;^)

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -