Wittgenstein in Tratta write as follows: "6.3611 Processes can not be comapred with "time passing" - there is no such thing - but only with other precesses (eg chronometres walking). Only on the basis of some other proces can you describe the time waveforms."
For this reason, I suggest defining time as the oscillation of the object relative to the object and the measure of the time of the other in relations to one oscillation to the other.
Piotr, that seems an adequate description to me, but from one event to another within the parameters of each event.
Wulf, he doesn't mean the regulation of time. He means something wholly different, that is in its wider scientific and philosophical sense. Let him explain. English is not his first language.
His understanding of oscillation is correct, that is if you have different events the experience of time can be different. That experience is probably not simply perceptual but demonstrates an actual quality of time. There are very good papers on this here. For example, if you are waiting the experience of time is different to when you are busy. Not only does that indicate different quality of events, it may actually indicate time's oscillations between events. He noted something which is credible.
I mean that clock is some period whom we measured others period, instead of a watch, we can use any movement of objects relative to each other, being a certain period, even if it is not uneven, hence the conclusion that time is only a certain period measured by moving one object against the other objects.
explain further Piotr-that certainly is time is conservatively understood, one object relative to another.
Wulf, but your approach will maybe limit originality. Yes, he needs to read more and know far more, but that is what he has done here. You say, this is not what RG is about, and maybe not, but why not? Could you not aid him in this matter, and point out where to go, if so he needs to be told. I'm still not completely sure of what he is trying to say, and I'd rather let him continue than preempt.
I came across a young academic on here who suggested Time itself was a force (if I remember correctly), which he backed up well. Now, I believe that the conventional understanding of Time is wrong and we need to look at it more deeply and attempt to assess what it actually is. If Time actually does fluctuate and is not this series of lines (or whatever description you prefer) going from one object or event to another but is in fact more strange, less easy to pin down, than that-then any viewpoint should be considered.
Syed I don't know that it is but it should be explored. Again, if the fluctuations in time that we all experience are not perceptually based but reflect an actual phenomenon or phenomena, and I suggest it does, then Time is not what we have been taught it is. I know at least three (Asian too) academics working on this on RG. Exciting work! Genuinely exciting! And well worth supporting even if nothing comes of it.
Syed,
Beware - just because one person suggests something, does *not* make it true.
Time, clearly, is not a force - by any conventional meaning of that word.
I recommend Zeh's 'The Physical Basis of The Direction of Time'.
James Garry, thanks for recomendation of Zeh's i would try to find this book. I write about phisical not psychical phaenomenon of time, hmm... about this that time is a force is rather a joke, time will be trather relation, exactly measured of time is especially relationed.
s = v/t
v= s*t
t = v/s
t = km/m
then we need some other assumption because we fall into ignot on the ignotum i propose oscillations between objects, it would also indicate that the speed is relativized to the reference point and the observer
Time, therefore, is a conventional value, depending on the period to which we refer, for example, speed, the watch has no more significance in physics than the ruler, only the ruler measures the distance and the watch time.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Writing