[time-nuts] Beginner's time reference

[Mike S]

At 07:13 AM 12/12/2009, GandalfG8 at aol.com wrote...
>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.

Define "absolute measurable quantity," and give an example of something 
(not countable, like fingers on a hand) which is.

What units do you "measure" in? Certainly not most SI units, which vary 
by reference frame (time, length, mass, current, luminous intensity), 
and/or are simple counts (mass effectively, mole) - which leaves 
temperature. How do you measure temperature without using any of the 
other SI units?

How does one "measure," if not by comparison? Is pi measurable? Can I 
measure the circumference of a circle of diameter 1? How?

Or are you focused on "absolute?" If so, how is time any different than 
distance? You measure between the points you want to measure. I can 
measure the length of a bar of platinum-iridium, and call that 1 meter, 
or I can measure the distance a photon travels in 1/299 792 458 of a 
second. Is one somehow less real than the other?

>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.

Einstein didn't claim time didn't exist - he linked it with space. Time 
and distance are both relative to the frame of reference. Einstein had 
no problem making frequent reference to the speed (distance/time) of 
light. When he said "Time is an illusion," it was in reference to time 
separated from space. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or isn't 
physical.

This is nothing new. The GPS system was designed with the understanding 
that the satellites exist in a different frame of reference than the 
receivers. Yet, it works, because we measure time and mathematically 
adjust for the different reference frames.

Seems to me you're just being pedantic. It's like claiming Newtonian 
physics is wrong, even though it works perfectly well for 99.99% of 
what it's used for.