wordfailure

Why must there be an absolute reference? Isn't the concept of a perfectly constant reference an idealization? I consider ideals, be they Plato's ideal forms or the elusive essence of art, for example, to be conceptual simplifications performed by brains. Such simplifications seem to me to be required in order for brains to discern (or establish) patterns, or in other words to make sense of things.

John Page

I agree with the issue and it depends on your point of view - please note I said assumed constant.

Cheers, John

sophie

here is one of my essays, if you can call it that!

http://www.notrich.org/PHILOSOPHY/WHYtimeFLIES.html

John Page

That was fun! (If this is your frame of reference). Humans cease to exist when not passing through time.

xoc

I would think the definite thing we could say about time is that it does have length, and apparently motion. Length of time corresponds to length of a spatial object, both being framed under Special and General Relativity. A spacecraft travelling slightly less than the speed of light may show 1 second clicked off the clock for minutes-hours-etc. that pass for the same kind of clock on Earth(I'll post the actual equation if anyone's interested).
Gravity has the similar effect on time as velocity: theoretically we could watch ages pass in hours if we were on a sufficient body of mass with a telescope focussed on another world- perhaps this view could be obtained(theoretically, not realistically) at a certain distance from a black hole. Whether the time for an event to occur is an hour or 100 years is a matter of perspective, although it makes sense to judge the time for the event by the closest proximity to the event itself... for the spacecraft, it only travelled for 1 second even if for those on Earth it travelled for hours. Those on the spacecraft would only age 1 second so it would not make sense to claim that they were "really" travelling for a much longer time.
| _ (rocket) (time flies)
| ___
| ______
| _________
| ____________ (Earth)(time drags)
v length of time

A length of "time" or length of object(the measuring rod in Einstein's thought experiments) follows the same line of apparent size as perspective reveals to us of further objects- parallel lines on a road apparently converge. Our judgment on the length/size of anything is due to the perspective of the observer, the subjective "variations" of certain times seeming longer or shorter when equal in length may follow some similar suit. (time flies- the "velocity" may be related to our thinking, as when engrossed in thought/activity(velocity) time flies while when not involved in thinking, the slowness of our thoughts makes time seem to move slower as well. Perhaps)

*this diagram should look like a triangle, similar to a highway perspective, it's been parsed so I'll try to fix it somehow

xoc

Here it is, crude diagram of the relative size/length of spatial and temporal objects according to velocity... I haven't played with this for a couple of years so I'll have to recheck to see the quarter-circle is the most accurate representation.

Eric Starnes

One can think index of the observed change to the time. Some things have an index and the more constant change than other things. We can measure periods of the objective time it, which compare with the observed constants. It can be that the "time" objective is not (are called the data of noncrude of the sense) only (with the operations scientist to make must) a subjective kind change thoughts. He must say that the time is possible, in order conceptualización to be considered, care of the indices of the change took. This its does not seem what you require, but if them are, he resembles me that a tormented interpretation of the observation is required, in order to give to priority the subjective. Nevertheless such interpretations exist.

glycolysis

Sorry...newbie mistake

:banghead:

sophie

Wordfailure can think of time as observed rate of change. If this were true then what is it that we endure during change?

In physics the rate of distance traversed is speed. It would seem that an observed rate of change would be the speed of time. If scientifically one construes time as having an arrow, then this rate of change would be the velocity of time.

Time in the modern sense is associated with enduring the changes which occur in our material world.

wordfailure

Isn't change itself what it is that we endure? Does time exist outside of mind other than as a conceptualization regarding change? (I don't think this is mere semantics.)

Does speed exist in itself, or is it just an attribute of or a way to describe something about motion? If time exists independantly of mind, then it's a whole other ballgame, but if time is but a conceptualization regarding characteristics or attributes of change then conceptualizations regarding time as something that exists ouside of mind are misdirected, aren't they? I don't really know.