Time is not an actual object-every time we use 'time' to describe something, it is reducible to some physical phenomenon.
"The solution was heated for one hour"
"The solution was heated until the Earth completed 1/24 of a rotation about its axis"
Are equivalent statements.
The concepts of past, present, and simultaneous can be defined in terms of causality.
1. "Charlemagne consolidated the German Empire before my present experience"
2. "Charlemagne's consolidating the German Empire is a cause of my present experience"
Are equally valid, and 1 is reducible to 2. It requires a loose, impractical definition of 'cause', but it's legitimate.
So, since 'time' is just a convenient concoction we use to make communication easier, how do things like space-time make any sense?
>So, since 'time' is just a convenient concoction we use to make communication easier, how do things like space-time make any sense?
Well that means either you aren't making sense or people much smarter than you like Albert Einstein aren't making sense. I wonder which one it is?
Time is that which stops everything from happening at once.
Space is that which stops everything from being in the same place.
Both time and space are forms of separation.
Through Maxwell's equations and Einstein's formulation of General Relativity, the two are intricately linked.
how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real
EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED
CROP CIRCLES CONVEY THE SAME PATTERN OF ALL THINGS. ZERO POINT.
LIGHT. GEOMETRY. RELATIVITY.
I fail to see how this can be classified as anything else than philosophy. Wether 'time is an actual object' or not has nothing to do with our physical understanding of it.
Also I just love how so many people who have no familiarity whatsoever with the modern picture of time in physics (in GR's context) get so upset over this.
That's a nice little analogy, but it doesn't really make sense.
You can't measure the separation of two objects in any way but with independent spatial measurements without running into vicious circles. 1 Planck meter or whatever is the shortest distance anything can travel. This definition can not be reduced to a simpler form.
However, you can measure temporal separations in any number of ways that are not dependent on any independent existence of 'time'.
To continue this line of thought, you can define a second by, say, the amount of 'time' that goes by (measured by vibrations in an atom in that same amount of time or whatever) when a light beam travels 1 meter, or something similar.
You cannot similarly define a meter in terms of a 'second' without chasing your tail. Therefore, time is not an entity with any objective existence and things like space time are ridiculous. There is only space.
You can define a meter as the amount of space that goes by as a light beam travels one second. Are you too stupid to see that everything you say about time applies equally to space?
BTW, there's this thing called Planck time...
>You cannot similarly define a meter in terms of a 'second' without chasing your tail.
isn't that how a meter is defined tho?
so, wtf, is it all meaningless? how do we know the speed of light is even constant?
But what is a 'second' in that example? How do you define a second not in terms of some physical phenomena?
And what about physical phenomena that aren't just distance? For instance, rotation. We can define a second as the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate some amount.
How would you define the amount of rotation the earth underwent in terms of an abstract 'second'?
My point is that you don't NEED to define it like that.
You can whip out a ruler and declare 1 meter to be the distance from the front to the back, with ZERO temporal help.
There is no equivalent process for time. You can't clap your hands, wait, and clap your hands again and declare the interval to be one second without chasing your tail.
You're not making a fair comparison. You say time can't be measured without time but distance can be measured without time. You should be using distance and distance since you're using time and time.
You aren't getting my point at all. My point is that time can be reduced to x physical thing in all cases, whereas physical things don't simplify like that.
Time is like a row in a matrix that is a linear combination of all the others. When you simplify it to its most simple form, it just goes to 0.
I'm not using the standard definitions, I'm using a more intuitive definition. Yes, the International Jew Academy of Mars defines a meter in terms of time, but this is not *necessary*.
You can only define a meter in terms of time (which is for convenience's sake, it is not logically necessary) after you have already defined a meter independently of time.
What they're doing is defining a meter, then defining time, and then defining a meter in terms of that time. This shows that time is reducible to the spatial measurement (or whatever physical phenomena is at hand).
>You can only define a meter in terms of time (which is for convenience's sake, it is not logically necessary) after you have already defined a meter independently of time.
No. We define a second based on X number of cycles of a hyper-fine transition of rubidium (or similar standard) and you define the meter based on the how far light gets in y fraction of a second. No meter needed.
The meter is not used to define the second, it is not circular.
Yes, a second can only be defined externally. We CHOOSE to define a meter in terms of this time (that is only a shorthand for some other physical occurrence that happens at constant intervals), it is not necessary. A meter can be just as easily defined as the length from one end of a ruler to the other. Bam, space measuring space, valid.