[time-nuts] Beginner's time reference

[GandalfG8 at aol.com]

In a message dated 12/12/2009 11:35:49 GMT Standard Time,  
mikes at flatsurface.com writes:

At 06:47  PM 12/11/2009, GandalfG8 at aol.com wrote...
>Unfortunately, that's not  really the way it is.

That's opinion, stated as fact.
--------------
Is it?
 
Can you show me any definition of "time" which demonstrates it to be an  
absolute quantity other than those which relate only to intervals?
----------------

>Time nuts do not and cannot measure time itself  because time as an 
>absolute
>  entity just doesn't  exist.

That depends upon how one defines "time." Also, how one defines  
"reality," and where they sit on the philosophical/pragmatic  scale.

The OED's first definition is "the indefinite continued progress  of 
existence and events in the past, present, and future, regarded as a  
whole," and that's exactly what time nuts measure.

Time exists in the  same way any other dimension does. It is measured by 
comparision (how many  cycles of Cs resonance between two other events, 
etc.).

Zeno's  paradox tells us that distance and motion don't exist, either. 
But, there  they are. No sense trying to respond, since it is impossible 
for your  fingers to travel the distance required to make a response.
 
---------------
 
I think you might be missing the point, the OED definition that you quote  
does not define time itself as an absolute measurable entity, and what time 
nuts  measure are, yet again, the intervals between events.
 
Dimensions, if you like, are properties rather than absolute entities but  
generally of something that has physical existence, so a rock, for an 
example,  might be said to have mass, length, height, etc.
It doesn't matter how you choose to define the properties, the rock  con
tinues to exist regardless.
Similarly, less tangible items such as perhaps potential difference will  
exist anyway regardless of our definitions or the dimensions we apply to  
them.
 
Frequency of course, as in how many cycles, is inversely proprtional to  
time intervals so back to square one:-)
-----------------------------


>And just in case anyone wishes to shout me down on this, as  happened 
>when I
>  dared to suggest the same some time  ago,

It's easy to be right, when you define terms to your own liking.  Just 
what do you mean by "some time ago," given your claim that "time itself  
[isn't a] measurable quantity?" :-)
 
--------------------
Who said I was defining it to my own liking?, I did say it wasn't always a  
very comfortable contemplation.
 
"Some time ago" is easily defined in terms of time intervals, albeit  
perhaps not to the usual time nuts' standards of precision:-), but that's the  
whole point, we know that the intervals exist that separate sequential events, 
 and we know we can measure them with significant acuracy, but where does 
that  leave us in terms of "time" itself.
 
Considering time as a dimension isn't quite so bad but the point I was  
attempting to make, perhaps not very well, was that many folks choose to,  or 
want to, treat time itself as something that exists in a physical form, such  
as a river for example, and hence, again just by way of example, something 
that  we might consider travelling backwards and forwards along if only we 
could find  the right boat.
 
And continuing that analogy, if it's the flow of water that creates a  
river, what is it that flows to create time:-) ?
 
regards
 
Nigel
GM8PZR