My Time Paradox

[Guille]

However, motion and time are not syncronised, time is always constant, but motion is not, although they affect each other in some ways, but they exist independently. I have a different approach towards its meaning also, time is a constant thought and perception, it is not measurable in any fields of physics( how do we know a second is a second, because the earth's orbital speed around the sun or the oscillations of the cesium atom, I don't think so), but we written it as numerical values to differentiate movements between concrete intervals, but this had to be done to evolutionise human culture.

I agree, time is cosntant and motion is variable. But this is getting too abstract without the need of it, we can be complete and yet simple. Time is the measurement of change (motion is change in fact), so then it is constant, for if it changed, there would be no sense, for we would measure change with change, being false and useless. It's just the same with space. Motion through space is not constant, but space measurement is. I mean, a cm is always a cm, and science doesn't determine it in anyway, just like aS A second in time. But still, if we want to ahve concepts of any kind, starting by velocity, acceleration and force going onto energy, power, entropy... We must assume measurements of dimensions. Remember dimensions are just abstract analagies.

[jim barlow]

I hate religion as much as the next man. That is why I can detect religious attitudes under different guises. The long list seems to have the following in common: slavish adherence to words or concepts derived from some authority. It is usually a shortcoming of youth and of mentally challenged older age.
What’s wrong with a well understood concept? As long as it is in language it is ambiguous and in no case covers reality which is always broader than the symbols applied to it.
How to avoid this unfortunate religious thought process? I would recommend playfulness. I would recommend always keeping in mind that whatever I say the opposite (or some similar theme) is also true.
Language and concepts are like hammer and nail. Whatever their usefulness I wouldn’t venerate them as “holy relics”.

[dleviwing]

Science is based on MEASUREMENT – MEASUREMENT - MEASUREMENT. If it cannot be measured, then it cannot be proclaimed as known. In Lord Kelvin's words; if you cannot express it in numbers, you know not of what you speek.

If we allow belief systems to be included in science, then science becomes just another religion. We are too close to that scenario now with Relativity, QM, and M-theory.

[jim barlow]

who says we are talking here ONLY of science?
and what has it got to do with that damned religion?
You think Einstein shut down when he couldn't measure something?
Or Pythagoras was struck dumb when there were no triangles around?
Before you measure you choose what to measure. And how do you choose?

[dleviwing]

You seem to be confusing theory and hypotheses with philosophies Jim. I Can only assume you to be a science novice.

who says we are talking here ONLY of science?

This forum is a science forum; if you are talking something else, you may wish to use one of the other forums.

and what has it got to do with that damned religion?

A belief system that requires faith is a religion, one that provides proof to form judgments, is a theory or hypotheses.

You think Einstein shut down when he couldn't measure something?

I don't think Einstein ever measured anything. That is why his work is all theoretical.

Or Pythagoras was struck dumb when there were no triangles around?

Don't confuse math with science.

Before you measure you choose what to measure. And how do you choose?

You first observe a phenomena. You then develop a hypotheses or theory you "believe" explains it. You then determine a method to "Measure" it to define its physical reality and thus the theory becomes true or false knowledge.

[baudrunner]

Einstein liked inventing phrases such as "God does not play dice," "The Lord is subtle but not malicious." On one occasion Bohr answered, "Einstein, stop telling God what to do."

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/ae63.htm

[jim barlow]

"You first observe a phenomena. You then develop a hypotheses or theory you "believe" explains it."

How do you observe phenomena?

How do you develop hypotheses?

[dleviwing]

How do you observe phenomena?
How do you develop hypotheses?

This site should be helpful to you in understanding the basics of physics.

http://www.vectorsite.net/tpecp.html

[jim barlow]

David, I am not surprised that you cannot adequately answer how one generates hyptheses. Everyone does it in his/her own way. I try to complement these varying approaches when can not displace them.

Jim

[Guille]

You first observe a phenomena. You then develop a hypotheses or theory you "believe" explains it. You then determine a method to "Measure" it to define its physical reality and thus the theory becomes true or false knowledge.

For me, this is the proof that science ultimatelly depends on intuition. We consider science the ultimate point of achievement by the human intellect, the thing that pulls us further away from being primitive animals. But in reality, observation of phenomena is reduced to animal senses, hypothesis is reduced to previous experiences, methods are reduced to instincts of what is appropiate and what isn't... Do you agree?