Wittgentein argued that time was a comparison of one period to another. Time is measured in seconds, but it is not a time phenomenon. In my opinion, time is the road multiplied by the amplitude of the particles moving relative to each other. s = v / t, v = s * t, t = v *other (amp (xRzRy)R amp(gRnRl)). Triangle transformation is not always adequate. Time is a change in the configuration of the particles relative to each other related o other amplitudę of particles.
As per my knowledges, if s is the travelled space and t is time for covering it, the velocity v is v=s/t.
But ti is time measured per clock. My definition is period over period
The problem of the nature of time (as well as space) dealt with by Zeno, Aristotle (Physics, book 4, ch.10), Newton, Kant, Bergson, Einstein and others was ultimately regarded as unclear: clock must somehow be gauged, and this procedure implies an already existing concept of metric. In particular, Weyl in his "Space, time, matter" had to introduce metrical units merely as his main hypothesis. It might be shown, however, that physics could dispence with metrics - clocks, rulers, coordinates etc. (see: http://www.ptep-online.com/complete/PiP-2016-02.pdf).
Enter your answer
You can define time how you want, on condition that it is a definition of time that allows its measurement. At present measurements of time have an accuracy of about 1ns. Your definition of speed is wrong.
Then, nature of time is period per period, but for physicist konwentionalist is more useful, then we measured time per clock. Thank You for response.
I take a physicalist view of time rather than a relational view of time. If Wittgenstein's view is correct, it seems to presuppose the existence of a comparer and therefore relationality. But I see no problem in understanding time as a measure of amplitude.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Elementary Particle Physics
- Particle