uwot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:25 am
ken wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:11 am
uwot wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:12 pm
That's been dealt with on this thread. Whatever the "true nature of time, if it even exists", the only thing that we can measure, or count, is periodic events.
But there are NO actual periodic events, so there are NO actual intervals to measure.
Periodic events, to people who believe in them, include things like the Earth going round the Sun, the Earth rotating on it's axis, a pendulum swinging back and forth, the vibrations of plucked strings and the oscillations of irradiated atoms.
All of which are just a part of the one actual event, which some times is referred to as spacetime. There are NO actual periodic events. There are only human beings who break down the one actual event into periodic events. As for 'people who believe (in any thing)' well that has already been discussed.
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:25 amken wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:11 amHuman beings have just devised, invented, and created a way to make measurements.
As above, we don't know whether we are actually measuring any such thing as 'time'; all we can do is count periodic events such as the ones listed above.
To be able to count "periodic" events one has to first break one thing down into periods, or only look at one thing.
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:25 amken wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:11 amIf an observer only wants to see separate events, then they can, AND, if another observer only wants to see one event, then they can also.
Well, it all hinges on what you mean by see. If two observers are watching the pendulum in a grandfather clock swing side to side, it is entirely up to the individual to choose to 'see' the whole sequence as a single event, or to break it down into the individual swings. But in the most literal sense, both observers will see the pendulum swinging.
Obviously.
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:25 amken wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:11 amBut, if an observer actually wants to see
what IS, which is the Truth of ALL things, then they can also see that.
Same thing. What they will see is a pendulum swinging. If they wish to interpret that as the truth of all things, that is entirely their business. Some of us are less impressed by pendulums.
I am not sure if any person would interpret a pendulum swinging as the truth of all things, and, I am not sure WHY you would bring such a suggestion into this discussion.
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:25 amken wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:11 amRemember, absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.
Indeed, but that is not the sort of relativity that has been discussed over 60 pages.
Well, of course, that would be relative to the observer.
Also, how many sorts of 'relativity' do you observe, and what are they?
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:25 amken wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:11 amuwot wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:12 pm For all practical purposes, that
is time. Periodic events demonstrably, without any exceptions, have always been observed to 'take longer' the faster the arena they happen in is moving, and/or the stronger the gravitational field in which they occur.
What do you mean by 'periodic events', 'demonstrably', 'without any exceptions', have 'always' been observed to take longer?
I have NOT observed what you are proposing here.
Ah, well; that is the point about the sort of relativity we
have been discussing over 60 pages: it is only when you look at another frame of reference that you can observe the difference.
How many actual frames of reference do you propose there are in the one and only Universe?
Of course you, and some others, can look at, and see from, only
a part of ALL-THERE-IS, or you can look at, and see from, ALL perspectives, or ALL frames of references. The choice is yours.
The two different ways of looking, and seeing from, will, obviously, give two very different observations or distinct points of views. One provides a much larger, overall, and thus truer, picture of things, while the other provides only a very narrow, small, and thus distorted, glimpse of things. I hope I do not have to explain which obviously provides a much clearer and better view, and in far more clearer detail also.
By the way is it actually possible to look at
another frame of reference without making assumptions? Either you are in one frame of reference or you are not, and if you are not in a particular frame, then you would only be guessing what would be observed from that particular frame.