Quote:
|
anthonyjfuchs wrote
A second is measured as a given number of vibrations of a given isotope; if moving that isotope at one-tenth the speed of light changes the vibration frequency (whereby one could say that the second has become longer or shorter), does that really change the second?
Or, conversely, does calling a given number of vibrations of a given isotope a "second" make a "second" any more a tangible thing the way that a rock or a blade of grass is a real thing? The vibrations are tangible; calling 9-billion of them (and change) a "second" is as arbitrary as finding a heretofore unknown species of bird in the rainforest and calling it a "gringleblatt." It's just the word we assign to the natural phenomenon.
The fact that physical changes to the basis of our time-measurement standards can change those measurements -- speed causing a second to slow down -- to me at least, indicates that the "time" we're measuring isn't anymore than our own arbitrary construct.
|
All your examples are of
human measurements of time, and yes things like a "second" or a "year" are arbitrary constructs. What of a Planck Second (the time it takes the speed of light to cross the Planck Length)? That doesn't seem like an arbitrary unit of time (though it is another human measurement). From what I understand, you have (simply) your spatial dimensions
x,
y and
z, and your temporal dimension
t. The speed of any "object" in the universe through all 4 dimensions is equal to C. By increasing speed along one axis, you reduce speed along another axis (if you accelerate a spaceship close to the speed of light, you remove some of that spaceship's velocity along
t in relation to the rest of the universe and transfer it to
x y or
z). This seems to make time less of an abstract and more of an actual part of the physical universe.
Also, wouldn't your arguments against time work equally well against space? The length from the king’s nose to his outstretched hand is tangible; calling one of them a "meter" is arbitrary (this reminds me of a logical conundrum where "The Meter" is not equal to the length of a meter). So, would you be in favor of calling all of "space" that we're measuring an abstract as well (and if you do, can I start calling you Kant?)?