CAUTION! I got demerits from the Physics and Math forum for posting a link to Miles Mathis' papers. He is not peer reviewed and his site is his publishing site. I will post the link with the warning. Here:
A Revaluation of Time
Miles' views intrique until they go beyond my education. Here are the first three paragraphs. His concise expansions on this thought are at the site with many more papers on his insight to physics and even an explanation for the out of position Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft.
So without further ado, Miles Mathis.
Quote:
I would like to offer here a definition of time that is as little abstract as possible. What we want, I think, is a definition that describes time as something that we measure. Only that. One might call it an operational definition. This definition is not an explanation of what time means (or has come to mean) philosophically or epistemologically. It is an explanation of what time is in our experimental or everyday use of it.
I maintain that time is simply a measurement of movement. This is its most direct definition. Whenever we measure time, we measure movement. We cannot measure time without measuring movement. The concept of time is dependent upon the concept of movement. Without movement, there is no time. Every clock measures movement: the vibration of a cesium atom, the swing of pendulum, the movement of a second hand.
In this way time can be thought of as a distance measurement. When we measure distance, we measure movement. We measure the change in position. When we measure time, we measure the same thing, but give it another name. Why would we do this? Why give two names and two concepts to the same thing? Distance and Time. I say, in order to compare one to the other. Time is just a second, comparative, measurement of distance.
|