Hi My Name Is Steve.

[xyz]

No, time separates events and thus enables us to perceive change of any sort, of which decay processes are just one type.

 

It most definitely is physical. The interval (of time) between 3 traffic light changes is physically observed to be less than that for five. And if you cross the road allowing too little time before the bus you can see gets to your crossing point, you will be physically knocked down by it.

 

I'm beginning to suspect you may be some kind of anti-relativity nut. Is that why you've chosen xyz as a name? 

Actually I am a big fan of Einstein and not an anti relativity nut.  Einstein almost had it correct in my opinion but just ''missed'' a slight part, when he was thinking about the constant of light, I think he was also thinking about the subjective constant of ''gin-clear'' but ''missed'' the connection. 

When Einsteins visions the curvature of space he is imagining beyond the subjective ''gin-clear'' visual experience and looking beyond this to ''see'' his objective reality. 

I understand the guy he is really cool and I would of loved to meet him and have this conversation about thought as I also can ''see'' his curvature of space.  

 

''No, time separates events and thus enables us to perceive change of any sort, of which decay processes are just one type.''

 

​No, comparison separates events, think about this objectively and not from your subjected education. 

[exchemist]

Actually I am a big fan of Einstein and not an anti relativity nut.  Einstein almost had it correct in my opinion but just ''missed'' a slight part, when he was thinking about the constant of light, I think he was also thinking about the subjective constant of ''gin-clear'' but ''missed'' the connection. 

When Einsteins visions the curvature of space he is imagining beyond the subjective ''gin-clear'' visual experience and looking beyond this to ''see'' his objective reality. 

I understand the guy he is really cool and I would of loved to meet him and have this conversation about thought as I also can ''see'' his curvature of space.  

 

''No, time separates events and thus enables us to perceive change of any sort, of which decay processes are just one type.''

 

​No, comparison separates events, think about this objectively and not from your subjected education. 

This is meaningless rubbish. You evidently have no idea what subjective and objective mean: you are just bandying these terms about randomly.

 

This is going nowhere. 

[pzkpfw]

Firstly you are not being entirely objective in your thought about what I have said and what you replied with.

Rubbish. What's not "objective" about what I wrote?

 

Let me discourse your statement

What meaning of "discourse" are you using here?

 

You will be able to count how many drips fell while waiting for the observed change in the lights, this is quite obvious, you are comparing the amount of drips to the change of the light colour. Comparing!   then you would call this comparison timing, you are not timing time! you are in reality comparing two things that have change and trying to synchronise the two things. 

You call it time which is obviously abstract in this sense and not an entity, you are creating the ''time'' by comparison.

No. Counting the drops is not in itself merely comparison, it's a way to measure time. If you count two drops while the lights go green to red, and four drops waiting for the red light to go back to green, it clearly took twice as long for one change to occur than the other. Denying that is denying reality.

 

The thing is I do not make up thought experiments, they are objectively created using present facts of objective and subjective thoughts.  If you thought objectively about what I said and considered the very fact of subjective gin-clear space, we would subjectively observe both sets of traffic lights simultaneously.

No, we couldn't. We covered that in your previous inane thread. Light takes time to travel. Even if there were some universal "now" with which we could say those distant lights were simultaneous with local lights, we'd not see them simultaneously. That would require instant travel of light. Your "gin clear" assertions make no sense. The speed (not infinite) of light has been measured. You have words.

 

Because distance is a real provable thing.

In no more way than time. Time is a real provable thing. I can measure it, the same way you can measure distance. I can compare it, the same way you can compare distances.

 

You can say the distance is the length of ... of what? distance? ... between two points in 3D space.

 

I can say time is the length of ... of what? time? ... between two points in what is sometimes called the "4th dimension".

Edited June 20, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

 

 

In no more way than time. Time is a real provable thing. I can measure it,

Really?  You can count drips, you can count cycles, you can compare rates, how is that measuring ''time''?  That is counting drips and counting cycles relative to something else, I do not see where you are finding your relationship to time from?

 

 

''No, we couldn't. We covered that in your previous inane thread. Light takes time to travel. ''

 

Objectively light takes time to travel, subjectively we do not ''see'' photons. 

 

 

''No. Counting the drops is not in itself merely comparison, it's a way to measure time''

 

No, it is counting drops, that is what you are doing, then without any merit say you are measuring time which in itself has no physicality.   The Physicality of your drip counting is the drip. 

 

'''Rubbish. What's not "objective" about what I wrote?''

 

You keep saying no then quote back with subjective education, you are not thinking objectively about what I am discussing. 

 

''I can say time is the length of ... of what? time? ... between two points in what is sometimes called the "4th dimension". ''

 

 

There is no time in/of space, space is ''immortal''. Space does not decay.

Edited June 20, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

... I'm beginning to suspect you may be some kind of anti-relativity nut. Is that why you've chosen xyz as a name?

You should see his posts as Thebox over at: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php

 

It becomes quite (gin) clear.

[pzkpfw]

Really?  You can count drips, you can count cycles, you can compare rates, how is that measuring ''time''?  That is counting drips and counting cycles relative to something else, I do not see where you are finding your relationship to time from?

You are doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ear and closing your eyes, to deny what's plain to ... pretty much everyone else on Earth.

 

Once again, discussion with you is pointless; I'm out.

[xyz]

You are doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ear and closing your eyes, to deny what's plain to ... pretty much everyone else on Earth.

 

Once again, discussion with you is pointless; I'm out.

You are not discussing, you are saying it is this way accept it or its the highway.  That is not discussion, I have brought up points and you have ignored them completely quickly saying no and resorting back in reply with subjective education. 

 

I am being objective and accurate, you are not being critical in your thinking and relying on contemporary thoughts, you are not discoursing the information like I do, in simple terms I look for accuracies and inaccuracies in the information. 

 

You say we measure time, for something to be measured it has to have physicality, the physicality you have mentioned is of speed/rate of ''somethings'', 

 

You then give physicality to time by using the ''drips'' , but the physicality only exists of the ''drips'' and their speed/rate. 

 

 

You are not being objective. 

[exchemist]

You should see his posts as Thebox over at: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php

 

It becomes quite (gin) clear.

Yes I've already seen them. Evidently I've done the same as you, obviously wondering who the hell this person is. The "gin-clear" threw me for a bit: it's a term that Farsight uses a lot. But this seems a different sort of thing, though there is woo at the bottom of it, I feel sure.   

[xyz]

You should see his posts as Thebox over at: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php

 

It becomes quite (gin) clear.

Subjectively it is a ''gin-clear'' whole we observe that contains ''things'' .

[xyz]

Yes I've already seen them. Evidently I've done the same as you, obviously wondering who the hell this person is. The "gin-clear" threw me for a bit: it's a term that Farsight uses a lot. But this seems a different sort of thing, though there is woo at the bottom of it, I feel sure.   

It is quite easy to ''see'' the gin-clear, just imagine you are in the belly of a giant invisible man, what do you ''see''?

[exchemist]

It is quite easy to ''see'' the gin-clear, just imagine you are in the belly of a giant invisible man, what do you ''see''?

Forget it.