Mike Coslo wrote:
Time is the description of the interval between happenings. Do all
things happen concurrently?

I agree that time is the description of the interval between
happenings. What I don't accept is that time is some real
dimension existing completely independent of human concepts.

Before man emerged, living organisms got by on changes
alone with no reference to time.

That's hard to prove one way or the other.

I don't recall clocks being part of the fossil record. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Cecil Moore wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

Time is the description of the interval between happenings. Do all
things happen concurrently?


I agree that time is the description of the interval between
happenings. What I don't accept is that time is some real
dimension existing completely independent of human concepts.

Well now, that is somewhat different. As for time itself being a
dimension, that is quite arguable. But even if that is the case, it
doesn't mean that time itself doesn't exist.

Did you ever wonder what the speed of gravity was?


Before man emerged, living organisms got by on changes
alone with no reference to time.


That's hard to prove one way or the other.


I don't recall clocks being part of the fossil record. :-)

But there are clocks *in* the fossil record.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Well, you are correct, we live in a universe where everything hasn't ALL
occured at once... and we have a "progression of events"... time is not a
"cause factor" of them, you want to argue it is an "effect of them", and
indeed--it even looks like that to me... (especially when I tap my red heels
together, close my eyes and repeat, "I want to go home! I want to go home!
Would take time ta git home, yanno! And, Toto wants to go to! grin)
And, a law of physics is "every action has an equal and opposite reaction",
so, I think it follows, we are still viewing the "reaction(s)" to the big
bang... with all events we are now viewing caused by its "action"; and, we
even live under the delusion these "reactions" are logical (obey "just" laws
of physics!!!!)

What worries me more, is when the universe becomes "static" (no free energy
yanno, one of those darn laws of physics, something is "spinning" all this
"stuff"--why would the universe be "perpetual motion? Well, unless 'God'
spins it!") what then?

Will you admit time would cease to exist then? And, why? Just because all
motion stopped? grin

But, "time" is not real.... (Alzheimers yanno--I forgot I already mentioned
that--sorry! grin)

Warmest regards,
John

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
| Cecil Moore wrote:
|
| Mike Coslo wrote:
|
| Time is the description of the interval between happenings. Do all
| things happen concurrently?
|
|
| I agree that time is the description of the interval between
| happenings. What I don't accept is that time is some real
| dimension existing completely independent of human concepts.
|
| Well now, that is somewhat different. As for time itself being a
| dimension, that is quite arguable. But even if that is the case, it
| doesn't mean that time itself doesn't exist.
|
| Did you ever wonder what the speed of gravity was?
|
|
| Before man emerged, living organisms got by on changes
| alone with no reference to time.
|
|
| That's hard to prove one way or the other.
|
|
| I don't recall clocks being part of the fossil record. :-)
|
| But there are clocks *in* the fossil record.
|
| - Mike KB3EIA -

On Mon, 02 May 2005 00:34:03 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:
Time is the description of the interval between happenings. Do all
things happen concurrently?

I agree that time is the description of the interval between
happenings. What I don't accept is that time is some real
dimension existing completely independent of human concepts.

Before man emerged, living organisms got by on changes
alone with no reference to time.

That's hard to prove one way or the other.

I don't recall clocks being part of the fossil record. :-)

Sure there were -- growth ridges on clams, tree rings, etc.
:-)

wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
I don't recall clocks being part of the fossil record. :-)

Sure there were -- growth ridges on clams, tree rings, etc.
:-)

Those are merely reflections of changes in the amount of
sunlight. They would cease to exist if the sun changed
and went dark.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Are humans the only beings that "create" time?

I was out for my lunchtime jog today, around the golf course. I was
watching birds take off and land in the breezy conditions. It was
interesting to watch the subtle adjustments they would make, especially
when coming in to land. You could see them adjusting their wings in
several ways to send themselves to where they wanted to land. They would
compensate for wind gusts (and lack of wind).

Point is, I cannot come up with any way in which they can cope with the
randomness of the wind and land in the palce they desire without having
an acute sense of time. They obviously are not counting off seconds or
whatever. But they seem to land where they want to, and must be
predicting it by their flight adjustments.

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Thu, 05 May 2005 07:30:21 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
I don't recall clocks being part of the fossil record. :-)

Sure there were -- growth ridges on clams, tree rings, etc.
:-)

Those are merely reflections of changes in the amount of
sunlight. They would cease to exist if the sun changed
and went dark.

As, I suspect, would the organisms involved, no?