What is time?

infamous · February 12, 2006

So, there’s no “exception in the case of obvious parody” to the “no insults” rule?

I perceived InfiniteNow’s post to be a parody of DoctorDick’s. It would be a more accurate parody, however, if it readOn second thought, I thinks infamous is right – boogar and poo talk has no place in these forums. By 2-to-1, according to wikiquote, sarcasm (and is cousin, parody) is a bad practice. :hihi:

Exactly CriagD, the comment; "I suspect your mom smells like poo!" cannot be just brushed aside as parody. I'm confident nobody at this forum appreciates such references directed at either one of their parents, especially their mother..........Infy

ughaibu · February 12, 2006

According to a view expressed on the Muhammed thread, no harm was caused or threatened by InfiniteNow's post and it is accordingly protected by the principle of free speech.

InfiniteNow · February 12, 2006

I suggest you read our FAQ page InfiniteNow; This insulting conduct is not allowed and could result in banishment. Please refrain from falling into this type of behavior............Infy

Understood. While CraigD very accurately perceived my intent, and while often my ability to type humor is not as on the mark as my ability to speak it (which itself is also sometimes admittedly limited), I took the tone of Dick's post as offensive, and didn't understand the need for him to put down an entire forum because nobody had revived one of his questions.

I recognized how it might be perceived, which is why I posted the thread immediately after stating that I understood the need to challenge people to gain a response. However, I respect the rules and also you as a moderator attempting to keep the peace. I still do not feel that I was in the wrong overall, however, recognize that "throwing a rock at the ground and missing" was the nicest part of my post.

InfiniteNow · February 12, 2006

According to a view expressed on the Muhammed thread, no harm was caused or threatened by InfiniteNow's post and it is accordingly protected by the principle of free speech.

But free speech does not supercede the posted and accepted forum rules.

TheBigDog · February 12, 2006

This post is comletely off topic from the thread, but I feel compelled to comment about the recent exchange...

What a fantastic example of how laws are needed to govern civility in society. This site is all about freedom of speach, and exchange of ideas. But there is scope to what is acceptable exchange, and how we can treat each other. In our best intended free exchange, we sometimes need a third party to step in and let us know that we need to reel it back in. And in the name of civility, we recognize that need, accept the judgement, and move on in peace. THAT is what separates a civil society founded on the rule of law from failures that rely totally on the good bahavior of the members.

It makes me proud to be a Hypographer, and to know that I am in such great company!

Bill

InfiniteNow · February 12, 2006

What a fantastic example of how laws are needed to govern civility in society. This site is all about freedom of speach, and exchange of ideas. But there is scope to what is acceptable exchange, and how we can treat each other. In our best intended free exchange, we sometimes need a third party to step in and let us know that we need to reel it back in. And in the name of civility, we recognize that need, accept the judgement, and move on in peace. THAT is what separates a civil society founded on the rule of law from failures that rely totally on the good bahavior of the members.

Remember our exchange on this in Post #25 of the Democracy thread?

http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/5030-democracy-3.html

We're born into the rules of our society... we accept them at Hypograpy. I see this as a very relavant distinction.

TheBigDog · February 12, 2006

Remember our exchange on this in Post #25 of the Democracy thread?
http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/5030-democracy-3.html

We're born into the rules of our society... we accept them at Hypograpy. I see this as a very relavant distinction.

I remember it well. Another distinction is that Hypography is only as Democratic as Tormod will let it be. That would not work for greater society (nothing against Tormod). But I have already taken more than my share of TIME on this topic from this fine thread.

Bill

Pyrotex · February 12, 2006

I think it is TIME I paid a visit here, to the Time that Land Forgot -- though I have been a regular lurker.

I can certainly appreciate ooNow's point of view, and attempt to express it. The good doctor dick, though obviously having several brain cells, has a certain "rigidity" to him, shall we say. Kind of like: "you're not giving me the responses I want and expect, so shame on you..."

For example, I thought one of my contributions was relevant and relatively savvy, but he lost me when he dismissed the conservation of energy as meaningless for his purposes.

I guess what I'm saying is, I would love to post in this thread if there were more "give and take" going on. But the good doctor apparantly has a "script" in mind, and I'm just not interested in playing "role" and speaking only the lines that are given me.

Best of luck to you all. Long live Hypography!!!!

IrishEyes · February 12, 2006

Infinite, ug and BigDog-

you've got this really interesting discussion going on, and I really want to join in and add to it. But then I might get in trouble for adding fuel to the fire by dragging this thread even further astray from the obvious script.

I'm going to ask one of you (I really don't care which one) to start a new thread about the differences between a democracy and Hypography, and how much 'free speech' the staff affords the members around here.

read the tone of this as "Irish is not at all mad, and really thinks this would be a great topic, so I should start it, and bask in the glow of the Rep points she'll give me when I do"...

Enjoy!

Racoon · February 13, 2006

I'm surprised no one mentioned this earlier.

Time is Money! :hihi:

Qfwfq · February 13, 2006

I also criticize Dick's remarks about intelligence and maturity and I faded the most inappropriate ones but, Infinite, that doesn't justify the slander, something democracy doesn't allow. And that's more or less what the mom stuff was, wasn't it?

The Muhamed/free press thread, being more about these things, justified some use of irony and sarcasm but only where appropriate to the point. I hope I haven't been a contributing factor to your behaviour here.

Qfwfq · February 13, 2006

Sorry Dick, I remember you voicing distaste for philosophical works, but:

One concept of time is the apparent phenomena experienced by the entity proceeding into the future (the concept of time consistent with the physical laws governing the detailed behavior of that entity: his biological clock if the entity is living or the physical clock governing the phenomena if the entity is not living)

The second concept of time is "being somewhere at a particular time" (the concept of time as a parameter which determines the possibility of two different entities interacting: they have to be at the same place at the same "time").

although differing from Kant's remarks, is much in the topic of his transcendental aesthetics. Of course you're free to disagree with him and it may seem old hat at first glance but I find his reflections on time and space compatible with relativity providing one understands them as being the observer's proper time and spatial submanifold.

Then, simple universal momentum quantization in that fourth dimension (which yields what appears to be mass) projects out the visibility of that dimension (via Heisenberg uncertainty) and yields exactly the same (in detail) "pseudo relativistic phenomena" Einstein's relativity was invented to explain!

:hihi: Not sure what you mean exactly but does it match up with Lorentz invariance?

From the conflict between general relativistic phenomena and quantum mechanics:

In the same vein, I hold that Einstein’s error (an error which has plagued science for almost 100 years already) was that he assumed clocks measured time.

Einstein's 1905 papers had a very phenomenological approach but Minkowski's was geometrical. I haven't yet read further I'll just ask if you find that inconsistent too, and where?

Qfwfq · February 13, 2006

Wait, I found:

What he missed was that they could not be used to define the boundary between the past and the future.

Remember the light coooooooooone!

The boundary isn't a set of zero measure but it's a boundary. Before/after is undefined at spacelike intervals but is defined at timelike ones. It's a limitation on definability but not a removal. I'm not saying there's no problem with quantum formalism, Born's interpretation runs into the known difficulties e. g. with singlet states but Bell argued around this.

If no object may follow such a path, why does Einstein's proposed geometry of the universe include such a path?

Don't call it a path, call it an interval. Travelling along it would be superluminal motion, this is a well known point of SR with the causality paradox, the very reason they say ya can't get faster than light.

a point seldom pointed out by any authority on relativity

:hihi: many textbooks include the integral for proper time of a particle in accelerated motion. The next paragraph baffles me and I can't go much further till I get home, I saved your page to the purpose.

InfiniteNow · February 13, 2006

Let's put this thing to bed. DoctorDick, I would like to retract my comments. If you've put me on your Ignore list, well, cheers and best wishes. I took offense to your tone, and to calling the whole forum the things you did, and reacted in a way to call attention to this. However, you have a lot to share, and I appreciate your insight, and meant no serious offense.

Cheers... and nothing but love. :eek2:

Now... let's get back on point...

InfiniteNow · February 13, 2006

Let's try getting this bad boy back on track...

As the previous 133 posts (well... maybe minus just a few... :eek2:) clearly demonstrate, we each have our own unique view of time. However, there is, as is usally the case, significant overlap with each view.

If we could bring this overlap into better focus perhaps the rest would come out on it's own... as an emmergent property.

Perhaps the most accurate answer is "Time is a concept that by it's very nature is nearly impossible to define in a such a way that everyone not only agrees but understands. It, like love, means something somewhat different to us all yet has a sense of sameness despite this."

But that's too mushy. Let's figure this thing out as only we can.

What is time... to a child?

What is time... to mathemetician?