What is time?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » What is time? » What is time?

What is time?

ronjanec
Graduate

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 04, 2008
Location: Chicago area

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 239

Posted 09/07/08 - 06:14 AM: Subject: What is time?	#1
What is time? "Time is the movement of a clock" What does everyone think of this definition? Many physicists believe this definition solved one of the greatest mysteries in science are they right?

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 09/07/08 - 06:48 PM:	#2
So, before clocks, there was no "time"? Even with sundials and hourglasses? Time is our perception of change, and a natural bias toward moving things. It is a function subjective and objective experience.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 09/08/08 - 03:24 AM:	#3
I think time should be measured by the constant repetition of this stupid thread, over and over again, by people too lazy to see what threads have been active in the last two days.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

ronjanec
Graduate

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 04, 2008
Location: Chicago area

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 239

Posted 09/08/08 - 05:06 AM:	#4
So before clocks there was no "time"? I guess not according to Einstein swstephe its' his "definition"! Kwalish Kid: You are not pleased that I started this "stupid" thread?

makerowner
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 15, 2008

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 326

Posted 09/08/08 - 06:02 AM:	#5
ronjanec wrote: What is time? "Time is the movement of a clock" What does everyone think of this definition? Many physicists believe this definition solved one of the greatest mysteries in science are they right? What would a clock's being accurate or inaccurate mean under this definition?
For philosophy, Socrates, if pursued in moderation and at the proper age, is an elegant accomplishment, but too much philosophy is the ruin of human life. Even if a man has good parts, still, if he carries philosophy into later life, he is necessarily ignorant of all those things which a gentleman and a person of honour ought to know.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 09/08/08 - 06:13 AM:	#6
ronjanec wrote: Kwalish Kid: You are not pleased that I started this "stupid" thread? I would prefer if you had joined one of the half-dozen threads on this topic already. But while we're at it, let's see just how stupid this thread is. Can you provide a single citation for your claim that, "Many physicists believe this definition solved one of the greatest mysteries in science."
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

ronjanec
Graduate

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 04, 2008
Location: Chicago area

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 239

Posted 09/08/08 - 06:16 AM:	#7
You would have to ask Einstein this question and the physicists who agree with his definition...

ronjanec
Graduate

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 04, 2008
Location: Chicago area

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 239

Posted 09/08/08 - 06:55 AM:	#8
Kwalish Kid: I have read this comment in a book by a physicist and no I can't remember the name of the book at this time. If you are implying that I am wrong about this belief then why does every physicist I know of also believe "time slowed down" because one of the atomic clocks slowed down in the famous experiment?

astaire1
Dancing WuLi Master

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 26, 2007
Location: France

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 890

Posted 09/08/08 - 07:19 AM:	#9
ronjanec wrote: why does every physicist I know of also believe "time slowed down" because one of the atomic clocks slowed down in the famous experiment? Ah finally, there is something solid we can get a grip on. Scientists tend to focus on what can be measured empirically and what can be repeated in experiments. "time slowed down" is a phrase that may or may not be comprehensible upon close examination. However, in the context you provided there is little ambiguity for physicists regarding what is being claimed. The affect that was measured by atomic clocks would presumably be measured by anything and everything that can be affected by time. This includes the rhythym of your pulse (which is regularly measured by doctors) and your bodies aging processes etc., etc. etc. So the reason physicists agree on the claim you mentioned is that they agree that you could extend your life by taking the same plane ride as the atomic clock you referred to. Your life would be extended by the same amount as the delay measured by the atomic clock. So if you had an identical twin that was a tiny bit younger than you, he would be a tiny bit older than you after your plane ride. You could notice this by comparing your wristwatch with his, after your trip (and if the plane ride had been longer and faster you'd notice that your twin's hair turned gray before your own). That's why we would say that time slowed down, but its interpreted from your twin's perspective. His explanation for your hair that hasn't grayed and your wristwatch that has fallen behind his own is that time was running slower for you. You wouldn't have noticed any slowing down, but you'd want to say that time speeded up for your twin since your later observe that his wristwatch ran faster than yours and his hair grayed sooner. cheers Astaire Edited by astaire1 on 09/08/08 - 08:51 AM
Heaven, I'm in heaven, and my heart beats so that I can hardly speak. And I seem to find the happiness I seek. When we're out together dancing cheek to cheek.

ronjanec
Graduate

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 04, 2008
Location: Chicago area

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 239

Posted 09/08/08 - 08:03 AM:	#10
Sorry astaire1 the premise of the experiment was wrong and the conclusion was also wrong: You must be one thing or the other: Atomic movement slowing down is one type of thing slowing down and time would be a different type of thing slowing down. Yes the atomic movement slowed down but this does not "also" prove time slowed down because you are talking about two completely different things. If the movement of the atomic clock is time's movement then what is the movement of the atomic clock supposed to be then? Pick one: Time slowed down or the atomic clock slowed down? Edited by ronjanec on 09/08/08 - 08:15 AM. Reason: spelling

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.