Re: Time is what we measure with a clock.

On 25 Aug 2006 06:27:07 -0700, "fropome" <monkeys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


*** wrote:
I believe "time" is what clocks measure and that is
energy. It is redundant to speak of "time" and ""energy."

***

In the same way that it's redundent to speak of 'energy' and 'matter'?

Yes, glad we can agree this far.

I disagree. We might measure time by dividing it into units according
to the time taken to use a chunk of energy, but this does not mean that
they are the same thing. If we are to define a unit of time then it
must be the length of time it takes for something to happen- ie it is
the 'rate' of a certain event. This even can either be the rate of
radioactive decay (atomic clocks), or the rate of rotation of the earth
(sun-dials) or any other periodic process.
Periodic processes require energy to keep them going (due to the laws
of thermodynamics- no perpetual motion)- but this only means that we
require energy to measure time, not that the two are the same thing.

Time and energy may not be the same, however, I must start somewhere.
Einstein gave me starting place, time is what clocks measure. Energy
chunks. Very convenient, simplifies calculations, allows cooperation
and coordination, all wonderful and convenient.

As to there being something we can call "time," so far as I can detect
there is only "now." There is no way to travel in time. The past is
memory, technically our awareness of 'now' is a memory. It takes time
for the human body to receive inputs and consciously respond. To have
a gestalt of all the inputs and pick a foreground, I think it is fair
to say we live in memories. The future is fantasy, subject to
unanticpated consequences.

Perhaps 'now' is time, but it is displayed one 'now' at a time.

I keep hoping someone can produce an argument to support a concept of
'time' aside from its utilitarian advantage. If I want to know which
of 2 things are faster, be it 2 horses, 2 cars, 2 decays, I can run
them side by side and watch the finish, by my eyes or an instrument.
If it is not convenient to do this, then we need a 'clock', count
energy units of each and see which took more / fewer.

None of what I say is based on more than logic and observation. I
know we do successful things using our "clocks," but the world got
along fine thinking the sun rotated the earth and atoms were the
smallest particles.

***

.