Philosophy Now Forum

''TIME'' - definitions.
=
Can ''Time'' exist without matter ?
No.
Therefore, the right definition of ''time'' is to say: ''Gravity-time''
We have Earth ''gravity-time''.
Another planets have their own ''gravity-time''
From ''gravity-time'' is possible to create another definitions of ''time''
( atomic time-clock , biological-time, local-time, psychological-time . . . . )
=====

socrat44 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:37 am ''TIME'' - definitions.
=
Can ''Time'' exist without matter ?
No.
Therefore, the right definition of ''time'' is to say: ''Gravity-time''
We have Earth ''gravity-time''.
Another planets have their own ''gravity-time''
From ''gravity-time'' is possible to create another definitions of ''time''
( atomic time-clock , biological-time, local-time, psychological-time . . . . )

Ok. What is your point here?

socrat44 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:37 am ''TIME'' - definitions.
=
Can ''Time'' exist without matter ?
No.
Therefore, the right definition of ''time'' is to say: ''Gravity-time''
We have Earth ''gravity-time''.
Another planets have their own ''gravity-time''
From ''gravity-time'' is possible to create another definitions of ''time''
( atomic time-clock , biological-time, local-time, psychological-time . . . . )
=====
D - TIME.jpg

Algebraic expression of time thread in math section gives one possible definition.

socrat44 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:37 am ''TIME'' - definitions.
=
Can ''Time'' exist without matter ?
No.
Therefore, the right definition of ''time'' is to say: ''Gravity-time''
We have Earth ''gravity-time''.
Another planets have their own ''gravity-time''
From ''gravity-time'' is possible to create another definitions of ''time''
( atomic time-clock , biological-time, local-time, psychological-time . . . . )
=====
D - TIME.jpg

Time is an entity which allows change to happen with specific rate.

Time can exist without matter, but are manipulated by matter.

socrat44 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:37 am ''TIME'' - definitions.
=
Can ''Time'' exist without matter ?
No.
Therefore, the right definition of ''time'' is to say: ''Gravity-time''
We have Earth ''gravity-time''.
Another planets have their own ''gravity-time''
From ''gravity-time'' is possible to create another definitions of ''time''
( atomic time-clock , biological-time, local-time, psychological-time . . . . )
=====
D - TIME.jpg

Hi Socratus, you should not omit the (physical) space, the matter is only a damaged/scarred space:)

Any definition of time requires ths progressive nature of time to fully define it; hence time by definition requires a form of continual progress.

By default this leads us to the munchauseen trillema, while dually giving a constant understanding of time as strictly linear space itself;

hence time by definition is "definition" and acts as it's own proof this reflecting certain intuitive axioms such as "time will tell", "time will give us proof", "time heals (reforming as an act of defining a deficiency in health) all wounds", etc.

socrat44 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:37 am ''TIME'' - definitions.
=
Can ''Time'' exist without matter ?
No.
Therefore, the right definition of ''time'' is to say: ''Gravity-time''
We have Earth ''gravity-time''.
Another planets have their own ''gravity-time''
From ''gravity-time'' is possible to create another definitions of ''time''
( atomic time-clock , biological-time, local-time, psychological-time . . . . )
=====
D - TIME.jpg

Time was replaced by spacetime in 1905.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:32 pm

socrat44 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:37 am ''TIME'' - definitions.
=
Can ''Time'' exist without matter ?
No.
Therefore, the right definition of ''time'' is to say: ''Gravity-time''
We have Earth ''gravity-time''.
Another planets have their own ''gravity-time''
From ''gravity-time'' is possible to create another definitions of ''time''
( atomic time-clock , biological-time, local-time, psychological-time . . . . )
=====

Hi Socratus, you should not omit the (physical) space,
the matter is only a damaged/scarred space:)

Gravity-masses creates the physical space.
Without gravity-masses there isn't physical-space:
- remains only an absolute Minkowski 4-D space
without gravity masses.
or a negative Pseudo-Euclidean space

But in my opinion so called ''Pseudo-Euclidean space''
without gravity-masses must be as flat 2-D as real 2-D Euclidean space
====
P.S.
'' A world without masses, without electrons, without an
electromagnetic field is an empty world. Such an empty
world is flat. But if masses appear, if charged particles
appear, if an electromagnetic field appears then our world
becomes curved. Its geometry is Riemannian, that is, non- Euclidian.''
/ Book 'Albert Einstein', the page 116, by Leopold Infeld. /
=====

We can consider two kind of “spaces” - mathematical (abstract idea, where attribute “empty” does not give a sense) and physical, what is a real object that, as such, can not be “empty” - rather let say, it is homogenous, smooth. It has real, measureble properties. It can be eletrically, magnetically, gravitaionally polarised (accept several kinds energy), it is a medium that alowes to accept, objectivize/present and move a matter, hence it should have/share the same base with a matter.

As for your/relativistic Future, if it existed, it must have unlimite size, even in case, from event of beginning our Universe (BB), if it exists we should see it, if it exists, the whole Universe could not have any sense. Forget special theory of relativity, please, it is mostly obsolete, empty, sterile, wrong koncept:(

Cerveny wrote: ↑Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:35 am Forget special theory of relativity, please, it is mostly obsolete, empty, sterile, wrong concept

Ha, ha, ha . . .
===