It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NRen2k5
But a year is 365 days (except for leap years, of course).
Why do you consider it more economical to multiply entities by introducing an unknown physical force to explain time dilation rather than viewing it as a characteristic of time?
Originally posted by ipsedixit
I thought that the most outrageous statement in (my last post) was the one stating that "clocks don't measure time." I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that one for specific rebuttal.
In this post, which will likely be my last in this thread, I want to go into a little more detail about the subject of clocks.
(Here are some) possible calibrating references: ...waking and sleeping, breathing, the heartbeat, the menstrual cycle...
We have made better and better and better clocks, but we have made not one single advance in connecting these devices to the object of their stated purpose... When we measure something with a ruler, we put the ruler next to it... When we measure time with a clock, we have no way of knowing if time is present or not. A clock is the only measuring device in the world that is not required to have some kind of contact with the "object" it is measuring.
We see the hands of the clock move. They go round round the dial and we start to get bored, we start to get tired, we start to get hungry. What has happened? Mechanical events in the clock have occurred. Physical and mental events in our bodies have occurred. Has "time" passed?
Most people would say yes, but the events, mechanical and physical, referred to, are entirely explicable within a context of their own, without reference to "time."
We don't have a measuring device that can detect the influence of time in these events.
Originally posted by Lannock
A lot of this metaphysical stuff is way over my head so I'll simplify things a bit. My "proof" of why I believe man did not create time:
Time is the 4th dimension. You have 3-dimensional objects, but without time they're all frozen in place. For movement to happen you need time. There was movement and time long before man appeared on the scene. Therefore man could not have created time, we only measure it.
We see colours, hear sounds and feel textures. Some aspects of the world, it seems, are perceived through a particular sense. Others, like shape, are perceived through more than one sense. But what sense or senses do we use when perceiving time? It is certainly not associated with one particular sense. In fact, it seems odd to say that we see, hear or touch time passing. And indeed, even if all our senses were prevented from functioning for a while, we could still notice the passing of time through the changing pattern of our thought. Perhaps, then, we have a special faculty, distinct from the five senses, for detecting time. Or perhaps, as seems more likely, we notice time through perception of other things. But how?