[rollei_list] Re: ...was Avedon OT Time

  • From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 09:09:45 -0300

        It depends about what is your definition for the word
definition. From a scienfic point of view, there are two main concepts
for time, absolute (Newton) and relative (Einstein), mechanics is
based in part on Newton idea of linear and absolute time and it worked
and it works today from a practical viewpoint; Einstein time
definition was written this way: "Two events taking place at the
points A and B of a system K are simultaneous if they appear at the
same instant when observed from the middle point, M, of the interval
AB. _Time is then defined as the ensemble of the indications of
similar clocks, at rest relatively to K, which register the same
simultaneously."_ ;    it could be wrong or right, but it is a time
definition  and beyond if the universe is flat or curved, experiments
demonstrated that Einstein was right saying that time is quicker
according you are closer to the light speed, BTW, it's more practical
for us Newton's time definition.
Another practical definition is: "Time is what a clock reads. It is a
scalar quantity and, like length, mass, and charge, is usually
described as a fundamental quantity. Time can be combined
mathematically with other physical quantities to derive other concepts
such as motion, kinetic energy and time-dependent fields".


2010/12/20 Don Williams <dwilli10@xxxxxxx>:
> At 06:58 AM 12/17/2010, Carlos wrote:
> Don:
>         I could copy definitions, every viewpoints, etcetera from
> different sources, but I think it would be more easy to read this
> Wikipedia article:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
> Carlos
> Yes, I have read that entry and in the first paragraph it says: "Time has
> been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it
> in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has
> consistently eluded the greatest scholars."
> ________________________________
> I just noticed the above incomplete response on the subject.  I had been
> holding this message in order to find a statement by Einstein, that he
> couldn't define time, but it's buried somewhere in a 400 page bio I have
> been reading and I can't easily find that sentence.  Just trust me that he
> did say that.
> Einstein even used time as a fourth dimension, and also attempted to prove
> that the universe is curved back on itself.  Current evidence now points to
> a flat universe.  He even won a Nobel Prize in Physics, but not for his work
> on relativity.
> Interesting situation, Hawking wrote a Brief History of Time, but even there
> he didn't define the term.
> It's clear that even though there seems to be no scientific definition of
> time, we all use it, mutually understand what the word means, and are not
> hampered in our daily lives by the lack of such definition.
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at

Other related posts: