Talk:Time/Archive 3

159:

way very different from the others, they make a very easy to see and trace dimond path on the table, over and over again.... but all the rest of the balls are moving so differently from them that you cannot predict with any great ease where they are going next... the balls never grow nor shrink in number, there are always nine of them...yet the pattern they all make in total is never the same... every time you observe the table you see a NOVEL pattern ...if you take a movie of the table, no two images ever look identicle and no current patterns resembles any prior ones...but when you wish to see how far say the black ball has moved in relation to the table as a whole you can very easily count the cycles of the three stable balls whos pattern always remains the same... you can use them as your clock...you have brought time into existance in your pool table universe... yet the key thing to understand is that it is always NOW...the balls ONLY exist NOW, they dont exist in the past the have no existance in the future, they are solid objects only now...which is where my western view I believe now {pun intended} had lead me astray.... the western view, with its sci fi adventures of time travel, had CONviNcED me to see the universe, not as I do...a set of elements in constant motion, being measured by repeating elements..which I can count... but as a series of images on a film, which, I the observer could, perhaps one day, magically travel about and not be stuck on the one that SEEMS to be the present. the biggest problem with the western view of time, is if all times exist from some higher view of geometry, then there is no moment that anyone of that higher plain could point to and say, that one is the present... there would be no means of distinguishing one moment from the next and there would be nothing moving...which violates our very obvious experiences. to say that all times exist and that we are passing through them would imply that we are somehow not in them but something beyond them and passing through them like an observer picking up a film strip and just scanning each frame... but my new view, as indicated above, does not require that I be outside time looking in, but I can be part of the every changing patterns and just able to notice these patterns and gauge their changes by comparison to repeating cycleing countable events.

666:

ALBERT EINSTEIN, 1916”. This was a derivation from the postulates of the SRT. This theoretical concept, despite the “minuteness” of differences at small velocities as compared to the speed of light, implies that time is a function of velocity and any difference in relative velocities is accompanied by a different rate of time, i.e. minute or not the time on your hand where you wear your watch is running at a different rate with respect to the time where your torso is when you are walking along and swinging your arms, time for torso, time for arms, and time for the sidewalk all move at different rates. Time with respect to a corpuscle of blood in circulation is running at a different rate than the rest of your body. Anything moving relative to something in an inertial frame at rest with respect to it has a different rate of time. Time in this theoretical system is in continual differential flux with respect to every existent object. Imprecise terms such as “showed” being substituted for theoretical consequences and/or explanations of observed phenomena is not helpful.

941:

finite matter ceased moving, could it be said that time would pass? No. Time is said to be the fourth dimension, but without the existence of the other three dimensions, it could not 'exist'. The passing of 'time' would not be possible were it not for the universe it is said to affect, unlike the said other three dimensions, who depend on neither of the others to exist. Clocks do not tick because they detect or are influenced by time, they tick because of their implanted mechanism. WE do not move through time, we simply exist. What if time is not actually something existent, it is just a term used to denote 'pasts' and 'futures', something to make explainations of all descriptions more accurate. Eg - Meet me for lunch at 12:30pm. In line with my theory, 12:30 does not exist, but it will inform a given person that they must be at the given location when their watch or clock, which ticks due to its mechanism, not the detection of 'time', is alligned with the 12:30 position. See what I mean? Please comment.

799:. The Nobel committee member was wrong. But it is an interesting psychological question as to why it is so hard for so many people to progress in this part of physics, even today. Perhaps your link belongs somewhere in the area of psychology (??) or the relationship of psychology and religion. The great speed with which light travels no doubt makes it seem as though time is universal. We know it takes about 8 minutes for the Sun's light to reach Earth, but naively, one thinks he/she could compensate for such delays and find a way to set clocks "all over" the solar system so that they'd agree (you set the one at the Sun's surface to read so that an image of it seen at Earth reads 8 minutes behind an earthbound clock). This does not work, however, as, if made the same way (ignoring the heat!) the clocks run at different speeds and cannot be kept in synch. This gets into General Relativity but the point is that such problems actually force specialists who calculate the movements of the planets (e.g. 130:

of the practicality of an infinite progression of non repeating procession to increasing complexity). This living process progresses towards inceasing complexity creating the illusion we experience and seek to label time. In the West Quantum Elecrodynamics shows that there is no material, its all made of waves or as Buddha said material is an illusion, in the East Buddha said everyone is Buddha, ie its all made out of the same waves and so self is the illusion, its all one living system. This is not easy to understand as it removes god and self at the same logical conclusion, or vishu and self if you wish. There is an interesting side benefit to this outcome that without self there is no death. Buddha would say that the scientists should be taken seriously about climate change, Krishna might add something about peak oil. How much time does our species or life form have before it makes itself extinct or becomes extinct, i.e. runs out of time due to ignorance. Bob Smith, Cilgerran, West Wales.

451:

sentence: "Two distinct views exist on the meaning of time." There is a second reason; the two views discussed are not theories about what the word 'time' means. They are theories about the nature of time (if there is such a thing). It seems painfully clear that both Newton (with his substantivalism) and Leibinz (with his relationalism) entail that there is time; the difference is in what they think time is. Another problem that I have with this sentence is that it's false. There are more than two theories of time. There is the McTaggart theory (which is mentioned later on) according to which both substantivalism and relationalsim are false. (Again, whether McTaggart's view is internally consistent is another thing, but inconsistent or not, the theory exists.) I think that there are lots of other ways to make this article better, but I figure it's best to start with the beginning first. --

904:

not be ordered any more, no motion existed at this point) time did not exist. Why? Because what change was there for it to be relative to? There was no earth spinning on its axis to give us the length of a day, nor anything for that matter. Going above and beyond the reaches of time, I cannot give even an educated guess as to how the universe was set into motion... There is the big bang theory, the steady state theory, and then ofcourse religion. None of which have been ultimately proven, and none of which explain why there is a universe at all...Im not a big fan of the big bang, because it doesnt answer the question, why? Everyone can believe what they wish, thats their own right..Perhaps no one has come up with the right theory yet? Or Perhaps we are only a few cosmic piece away from understaning the entire universe xD hope you like my theory

1314:

such scale was perhaps the movement of stars in the firmament. This assumes that earth rotates at constant angular velocity. I think it is necessary that the article on time needs to express this fact. The standards changed progressively to pendulums, balance wheels and now the frequency of the cesium atom. What I do not understand is the statement that the most accurate watch at one time was accurate to 10 seconds in a year. What is the standard used for determining the accuracy? Another important fact is that humans have sense of rhythm and therefore innately able to determine the equality of successive intervals of time, say in a drum beat. Do you not think that this also needs to be mentioned? (ambi 14:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC))induvasan

885:

we have percieved as this length in time. e/g a day is 24 hours, but really an hour is 1/24th of a day... The universe is one super-massive event, and we feature in it, for now.. Time as we recognise it in our minds, is like a book. There are parts of the book which we have read (the past) and parts of it we have yet to read (future). Now, think of there being no 'now' (I know, irony :P). There is never a 'now', atleast from an objective point of view, since 'now' would be the infinitely divisible segment between experience and anticipation. Infinitely divisible, meaning divide by infinite, which = 0, hence no such thing.

896:

higher information pulse rate, lets say by a factor of 2 (twice as fast, hence half the length of intervals between signals) would percieve time at half the rate we would. This is because it is the relative rate of converting change into memory, and at a faster rate, change would seem less frequent or slowed. Scientifically we could test an animals relative time conception by measuring the amperage from their CNS. (I dunno if itd be directly proportional, there are probably many other variables..I dont even know if itd work, little alone how to do that.)

1605:

was unreal, so Adler could not be criticizing him for that. Adler is specifiaclly criticizing Hawking's idea that what cannot be measured does not exist - which is what Hawking has said about Time before the Big Bang. Other physicists say it DOES make sense to talk about time before the Big Bang - but that all information from that "era" is unalterably inaccessible to us. Adler's criticism of Hawking belongs in the section on "Time and the Big Bang" - it makes no sense in the "Time as unreal" section. Please discuss here before reverting any more. --

3423:

other people, have been looking for a source. And sources for the comparative examples! Anyways, before I throw my gloves in the rink or give up. (Head shaking)... I worry and question my merger proposal again. Are we still making the right decision? Do we have all the facts? How many more sources will or can we find to try and fix this problem and could each one of these magnitudes have enough resources to become an article? Then again... I still feel they should be merging as is, right now. --

900:

factors of 10, as opposed to yards and what not in imperical, that a standard unit of time is time measured whilst travelling at the speed of light, the time taken to pass a metre. (in seconds/metre). As time becomes less of a mystery, i believe this is what will be used, as time has a tendancy to slow down/speed up when measured in motion. An aboslute minimum division of time must also exist, that of the smallest noticeable change in a particle travelling at the speed of light.

135:

other than the contents of mindspace, or do we? so, while units of time are means of cataloguing experiences by reference to other more stable and countable experiences, time itself is a mental dimension which has no actual physical corrolate as the apparent physical realm only exists now. mindspace is actually five dimensional, because it contains space, time and entire spacetime alternative universes otherwise called twilightzones ] 17:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

889:

a particular frequency, the mind has neural pathways in which pulses of information are sent to be stored in the memory (hence make transition from anticipation to experience) which pulse at a frequency unique to the human mind. This rate of pulses can be sped-up, by way of reducing length of intervals between pulses, when say the body is in an adrenaline rush. The reverse is also true, when there isnt so much stimulation, lets say like when sleeping.

31: 745:. That link leads to others that might be considered OK. It could be said in words thusly: "What appears to be a three dimensional cube existing for some period of time is actually four dimensional because it is extended in the time coordinate. An actual 3-dimensional cube would exist only for an infinitesimal time period in its rest frame." The 2-d diagram you refer to is sort of OK, but in some ways it's too simplified. 1113:

what happened before, and so we say "time began" at the BB. This interpretation avoids the ridiculous claim that a dimension can be measured in terms of itself, which is what is being done when one says time had a beginning. It's equivalent to saying the concept of height is a certain number of meters high, or that the concept of weight has a specific weight. How can the concept of time exist for a finite time?

1163:"Interesting that indeed nothing physical in our Universe depends on time (nor on space) per se. This in turn mathematically results in all known conservation laws - see Emmy Noether theorem for the proof of this. So, it is quite possibly that time (and space) are not "physical" quantities but rather intermediate mathematical abstracts invented by us to relate various observable phenomena together". 179:"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live", regarding these modes as derivable from a proper theory of reality as idealized functions of an idealized continuum: "We will not feed time into any deep-reaching account of existance. We must derive time-and time only in the continuum idealization-out of it. Likewise with space." Wheeler,"information, Physics, Quantum" 1584:"1. Time is not an empirical conception. For neither coexistence nor succession would be perceived by us, if the representation of time did not exist as a foundation a priori. Without this presupposition we could not represent to ourselves that things exist together at one and the same time, or at different times, that is, contemporaneously, or in succession. 1657:

immeasurable is nonexistent," is direct evidence of the preposterousness of his attempt to discredit a hugely respected scientist. How Adler's quote keeps ending up in the section on the incalculability of conditions in the Universe before a Plank Time after the Big Bang is anyone's guess, but it really ought to be under the philosophy heading.

662:

intervals depending on the accuracy of the movement, and are linked to some sort of counting mechanism or readout which records the number of movements. Whether a clock counts a quantity of water, clicks of a gear activated by a spring, movements of a pendulum, or resonant frequencies of a cesium atom, it is not directly measuring time.

712:(in vacuum). But there is still some mess. This part "Relative to a frame of reference at rest, time seems to "slow down" for the particle. " seems confused. Who is to say what it meant by "a frame of reference at rest."? This flies in the face of Einstein's concept that all motion is relative. The same was known to Galileo - see 1506:

rule, any link that is previously mentioned or used earlier in the text should not be listed in the 'see also' section; the section should only contain links to similar subjects to aid readers in further understanding of the subject, or similar subjects for further research. Editors may also want to review

3697:

might represent such vastly different universes as to merit separate articles, right now everything is so scattered as to hinder the growth of anything past stupid listcruft and trivia sections. So whatever the best ultimate decision will be, if nobody can improve the existing mess then nobody should

3422:

uses the "e". The table, when I first saw it, lead me and probably "us", wondering what the heck is the "e"? My assumption, though I don't believe I said it, was that the information was non-verified information. What pisses me off with all this is that for the last 3 weeks, I and probably a bunch of

1907:

It is a fact that "time within the big bang created space-time started at the big bang" IS the big bang theory in a nutshell. The only part of that which could be considered a philosophical opinion is whether or not the big bang theory is correct, unless Hawking tried to say that time existed before

1874:

He's a handicapped mathematician not a linguist. We're lucky he took the time to write as much as he did for the lay people and it's too bad that people misunderstand it so badly. Nowhere has Hawking ruled out time before our time, he is only stating that time within the big bang created space-time

1604:

The Big Bang & its implications is a topic relevant both to physics & philosophy - trying to separate them is suggesting that physics cannot be examined by thinkers in other fields. Also, it makes no sense to criticize Hawking until his views have been introduced. Hawking never said that time

1505:

The 'see also' and 'external links' sections are very long. These should be pruned back considerably. For starters, the 'special units of time' subsection can be deleted entirely, since there's already mention of units of time previously in the article, and the table there is sufficient. As a general

741:

I think the illustration is potentially useful, but I agree that the caption is opaque. It should point out that the two 3-d cubes illustrated are two time-snapshots of a cube in 3-space. It is somewhat confusing that they appear to be of different size. The reason is that the illustrator declined to

711:

The section on special relativity seems confused. I fixed one thing - the nonsensical idea that a particle moves through its own rest-frame. That's where it is stationary! Also I fixed the concept of the lifetime of a muon to be the mean - a muon has no definite lifetime but suffers exponential decay

657:

Time is not directly measured. In the sense that a unit of length can be assigned to an object in the real world as a standard, such as “one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the pole measured on a meridian from the North Pole through Paris”, and compared to other objects to determine

465:

I corrected a glaring omission... there was no reference to the coordinating system from which the si second arose, namely the tropical year and solar day... a second did not come into existance first, it was derived from a division from the solar day by 24 and then each hour by 60 and each minute by

388:

That paragraph takes a specific point of view &, imho anyway, is extremely convoluted language. Absent any disagreement, I intend to insert the above proposed intro, which does not present a one-sided view of time, has sources which indicate it is not purely original research, & uses language

3669:

The modified proposal is to merge only the E## articles. I don't think there has been ANY disagreement on doing that, has there? - though some envision one article and others more than one. Is there any objection to someone putting all the E## articles into one article, and then seeing if any split

3439:

To answer the question: With the information I have right now, I don't think it should be merged to the article time. A simple link to magnitude of time is probably sufficient with something saying see main article. (I think that's already there). Nevertheless, I believe the discussion should remain

1313:

Unlike measurement of length, time measurement presents a problem. It is not possible to juxtapose two intervals of time and make a comparison. Therefore the only way is to take as self-evident that events that repeat do so in equal intervals of time. We call this a standard time scale. The earliest

1225:

Besides, if season is the true translation (and most translations seem to say "There is a time and a season"), that only suggests there is a scope of time for which these events are appropriate. If you ask me, even without season, it seems obvious that this is only talking about an appropriate time,

1112:

This quote seems very consistent with the ideas attributed to "other theorists", and the article seems to imply that these ideas are not shared by Hawking. My understanding is that measurable time began at the Big Bang, but that doesn't mean there was nothing before! It only means that we can't know

888:

Fluidity of time-consciousness: If time were to be aboslute infinite, then our minds would need to process information at an infinitely fast rate. I believe that time-consciousness (the way the human mind percieves time) is set at a frequency, just like a clock has a quartz crystal that resonates at

884:

Ok, from my understanding, which is totally an opinion unadultered by any science or religion, time is an uptmost illusion. Time is something we have created and quantified to measure a rate in change. It has been created relative to the time an event takes from start to finish, and relative to what

669:

No people have traveled at different speeds and “measured”, in the sense of directly measuring, different times. No known direct measurement of an interval has been performed, and no confirmed observation of any physical component of time has occurred. This is fundamental to the explanation of time,

665:

What Einstein actually said about time was, “Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time ; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. RELATIVITY: THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY, BY

148:

I was under the impression that Newton conducted a number of experiments for inspiration in this instance. Why must his opinion necessarily have derived solely from his religious views? "Realism" seems to fit his conception of time, however disproven, as it is still taken for granted by aeronautical

2363:

I personally think most of these articles should be redirected and merged. The more common ones, as you say "nanosecond", "picosecond", "hour" (clearly a repetition of the article time), "second" (it too) may be able to stay. However, I believe these are content forks. Repetitive information should

1833:

Especially when sophists come along and skew what he said to make themselves look smart. Hawking is currently working on other theories involving TIME BEFORE THIS TIME-FRAME. Quit trying to make it look like Hawking has no idea what he's talking about. WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE BIG BANG we may

1489:

The lead section is overall sufficient, although could be tightened up in spots to make it a better and more succinct summary of the article. The prose in the measurement and definitions sections seems to be good, although I would recommend dropping the boxes around the definitions of the second --

1196:

I am not so sure "it is interesting to note" ever belongs in an encyclopedia - it makes the editor's voice apparent. Is it also interesting to note that multiples of 2 result in a much better match? At best, this is trivia, at worst it is trivia presented as having significance. I think the section

434:

what I intended was--universal, anyone can and does use this system, based primarily on sun, moon and seasons. and location refers to the acknowledgement of conscious awareness of relative position in the shared realm of mindspace, without which, time, space and just about any other measure becomes

158:

being brought up in the west, the US to be specific, I think I learned to see time inside out. after learning some eastern thought, I suddenly found myself seeing time in a very different way... think of a pool table with 9 balls all in motion... three of these balls are bouncing off the table in a

129:

There is a third view about time that is interesting and fits the Oxford English definition. It can be described as the understanding that the universe or existance we experience is a process we describe as life. This process iterates without repeating (see the Mandelbrot set etc for the mathmatics

3290:

So, what would any of you plan to do with existing links? Has anybody even considered the purposes for which they are used? Including the fact that the links go both ways, and that the "what links here" can be used to get information to flesh out what was on all those 1 E x s pages? Do you know

1656:

Stephen Hawking never made any such assertions, as evidenced by Adler's lack of any direct quotes. Hawking's stance is that things which cannot be measured are irrelevant to a physicist, not that they don't exist. Adler's inability to produce a single direct quote from Hawking stating that, "the

1411:

The lede is the one part of an article that MUST be readily intelligible to lay readers, the primary audience. That would be paticularly true for a word that is used in many ways by so many kinds of users. Hijacking a concept like Time will not do WP any good. Technical language in the body of the

1355:

Hi guys, I would probably like to discuss many things about the time here, but my primary concern so far is how the wordings like "SUCK MY BALLS" have been allowed into the body of the article? Is there any kind of moderation here, as I was expecting? Not sure, really, who's to address this issue,

940:

Imagine this: What if time is an illusion? It is not physical, it cannot be detected, it gives out no radiation, it is non-existent. WE believe it is existent because we base our lives upon its so-called pasing. But what exactly is it? Consider this. If every particle, every sub-atomic particle of

903:

Creation of time: It was Einstein who proposed that time will speed up or slow down under different circumstances. When travelling at speeds near that of light, time noticabley dilates, so I assume the reverse is true. When the entropy of the universe was at an infinitely ordered state, (i.e could

134:

a 2nd 3rd way, or perhaps a forth way to view time: time is a dimension of mental space that can be traversed as any spacial dimension of mental space. we often travel back and forth on it with our mind's eye. and this is the time we actually know and love because we never ever experience anything

1379:

next time you see something like that feel free to change it. Such scribbles are nothing more than random acts of grafetie similar to that on a bathroom stall or some defacement of a public library's encyclopedia. The difference here is that they don't need to buy a new set of encyclopedia. We

899:

Time-speed: How can time have speed? Isnt time a factor in speed itself, not vica-versa? True. But there must be a standard unit of time, and there must be an absolute minimum in which time can be observed through change. Lets say, since the metric system is already so neat and tidy, dealing with

895:

Relativity: The frequency of our time-conception must be relative to that of other animals, which have more basic minds, and smaller animals with a shorter CNS(central nervous system). If we created a relative scale, and said humans have a relative time conception of 1, then an animal which has a

850:

I would also note that this section does not seem to set any international definitions. Thus, if a lawsuit in the U.S. dealt with, for example, international trade, the inception or expiration of insurance policies applying outside the U.S., etc., there might be adjudicable issues. Worldwide, the

795:

by Edwin Taylor and John Wheeler (W. H. Freeman 1992). It seems interesting that relativity can be difficult for many people to understand. Indeed, one reason Einstein got the Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect, not for relativity, was that at least one member of the Nobel committee did not

730:

Does that illustration really help the reader visualize spacetime? The accepted visualization of spacetime is a 2D plane with world lines on it. Also, "...adhering to defined finite bounds, all possibilities for this configuration are conceptually representable." Is that a quote from Heidegger or

661:

This is not a trivial distinction. Misstatements regarding the measurement of time are countless as a consequence, wherein various “clocks” are said to measure time, when in fact they do no such thing. All clocks of whatever form are devices that perform regular movements, at more or less regular

1421:

The article is getting less intelligible than ever to lay readers, IMHO. If that's what it takes to be GA, WP is in trouble. I can see a good unified article that covers the time concept from the perspectives of physics (theory and measurement) and philosophy of science. I can see something that

3314:

Sorry, my bad. Back on subject. I think you're right we need to still talk a few things. But the most important is to know if we merger or not. Content formating is important, don't get me wrong, but more importantly is to know if these articles should or should not be merged. I've never seen a

2340:

the faux-calculator exponential notation, and I'm not convinced that an uppercase E is right anyway. What's wrong with millisecond? Who calles it 1 E-3 s? We don't call it that in the article. Some should just go. We dn't need one on a hundredth of a second, for example. But nanosecond and

1486:, and will not be listed. The primary issue is a serious lack of references and some major organizational issues. There are several 'citation needed' tags throughout the article, which must be addressed. Furthermore, there are entire section of the article that don't have any references at all. 1028:

I added an external link which discusses the question of the "unreality" of time - i.e. whether time (and space) is merely an adjunct of cognition (such as e.g. vision) which evolved in tandem with consciousness, rather than a "reality" (which pre-existed consciousness). This question has to be

2017:

from a modern English translations of the Bible. As far as I know almost all modern translations are copyrighted and at lest require the translation to be cited. The main public domain translations are: King James Version (except in the United Kingdom), Geneva bible, Bishops' bible, American

1950:

what on earth does this mean? "the big bang theory edited by Daniel Greagsby contains one such way of the cause in its simplicity. "the big bang was caused by a paradox in time. if time expanded, then was reversed in a stae of the time code, a matter of a paradox would occur where the universe

913:

Your theory is quite inline with mine ( Time Paradox ) and I think you and I are on the right track. By the way, I think the unit of time you were thinking of was Plancks 'time', the 'time' it takes for the fastest thing (light) to travel the shortest distance, christened the plancks distance.

588:

How is time Euclidian? Euclid dealt with spatial geometry - not motion & not physics. It is only by analogy that it is considered a "dimension" similar to (but different from) spatial dimensions - due in large part to Newton. And, yes, there are disputes about what time means - look in the

480:

Someone once said "there is nothing so absurd that is has not been said before by a philosopher." The new lede is in good keeping with that tradition, as it wanders (again) into the domain of an exclusively philosophical realm, for which the next natural step ( not unlike the economic cycle of

1493:

I'm just not getting the whole 'interpretations' section at all. It seems to be very long, and comprising lots of rather trivial and/or otherwise unsourced information. There seems to be two major topics which information in this section falls under; philosophy & physics. It might help to

450:

a nature to time. Whether this entails that there is such a nature is up for debate. it is going to depend what you think about definite descriptions and perhaps about empty names. I don't think we need to debate that here. The reason for the change is that there is a use-mention error in the

1099:

The article reads "Stephen Hawking has commented that statements about what happened "before" time began are self-contradictory, and thus without meaning. Other theorists have contended that even if there were another time frame "before" the Big Bang, no information from events then would be

399:

I have made the changes to Time that I proposed here on its talk page. Perhaps we can incorporate some of the recent additions too. I found the existing intro very convoluted, did not attempt to reference any disagreement over its meaning, and did not identify any elements of itself with the

1117:

09:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC) time being a mental creation can have a beginning. Since time requires one to notice changes and be able to gauge them by means of other changes that are countable, time has its beginning in the sense that there are events we have no ability to measure in any

1214:

I think its generally excepted by most people today that the quote from Ecclesiastes indicates only that there is a time and place for all things, and are not specifically predestined. I think the statement that predestination is specifically meant is POV, and based on other traditional

642:

So why not remove the Planck Time reference from the Time Quanta section and move it to Standards or Measurements, and state that time quanta is only a proposed (and a sci-fi) concept? My point is that referencing Planck Time as "main article" on the Time Quanta subject is spreading the

955:

There's a long and wide-ranging philosophical literature on this, which uses standard terminology to talk about the central issues. It's best if editors who are unfamiliar with this literature refrain from changing the terminology without at least asking here first. For example, in the

1422:

covers time perception (psychology, chrnometrics). I can see something about the relationships among changing time technologies and the history of thought about time (from 2500BC-Newton) and prevailing time-related human practices. I don't see them all in the same GA article, though.

3489:

I believe a series of small lists (like the lists in the "E articles") would be fine. Much of the information in the current table is redundant; e.g., lots of links to more E articles. I'd just do "cut and paste" merges of the E articles into "Magnitudes". I'll help if you'd like.

1497:

The psychology section is completely unsourced. A lot of its contents seem to be describing very subjective experiences, and the interpretation of them will vary quite wildly among different people. This information could probably be condensed down to about 1/4 of its present size.

3298:

links, with no real indication to the reader that clicking them will take them to something about orders of magnitude? Maybe most of them should just be thrown out--but the biggest question here is whether or not there is anybody willing to put in the time to go through them?

3319:

with an E in it. (I can't find anything to support that either). I hate trying to make a decision without verifiable information. My recolections seems to say magnitude doesn't have an e? but who am I but an artist that hasn't published this information in a verifiable medium.

1280:

It would have been possible to define velocity as a fundamental quantity, which would have made time a derived quantity. This wasn't done, and such a change will not be made in the future because it would be disruptive, but there is no technical reason why it couldn't be done.

3576:(for example) isn't a summary; it's a fragment. I don't wish to create "The story of everything" any more than you do. But a more apt analogy to the "Es" would be "First chapter of Moby Dick," "Second chapter of Moby Dick," "Third chapter of Moby Dick," etc. One is left not 604:

which was dominant until Einstein. Euclidian was perhaps overstated as that domain is limited to physics, though not exclusively to space (due to the assumption of absolute time.) But then so is a reference to Newton overstated, unless you want to make this about physics.

1106:"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them." 1298:

The above sentence has been repeatedly reintroduced by one editor. I ask that editor 3 main questions: Which definition is "this definition"? What are some examples of properties of time that follow from "this definition"? Is it not POV to say that time HAS properties?

535:

Knowledge policies are to present controversies in intro & avoid original research (going out on a limb with a definition). Are you expecting even an introductory account of time that avoids philosophy? The current one, byw, does not, as you persist in complaining,

1990:

21st century science—space and time are, together, independently existing geometry that exists in yet another space and time. Space can be can be warped, twisted, flattened, curved, and bent within that other space. Time can be sped up or slowed down within that other

493:

So, please (!) lets put back a lede which doesnt start with a disclaimer - such as the one I wrote last month, which actually goes out on a limb and states something. This on the other hand is (again) another... experiment to see how few legs a table needs.

1211:"In the Old Testament book Ecclesiastes, traditionally thought to have been written by King Solomon (970–928 BC), time (as the Hebrew word עת ’êth is often translated, as well as as "season") was regarded as a medium for the passage of predestined events." 1908:

the big bang, then it might be a matter of philosophy and opinion. The big bang theory, which is what Hawking's misquoted book is about, SAYS NOTHING AND CANNOT SAY ANYTHING about what happened before the big bang or what goes on outside our space-time.

2540:

I disagree with the notion of calling these orders of magnitude examples simply "trivia", because they really do help demonstrate why such orders of magnitude are even in conversation. I also disagree with all of these notions being merged into time.

1501:

The culture section is very short, and doesn't seem to be doing much here. It could probably go. The use of time section is probably better suited for an article on time management than this one. It could most likely be completely removed as well.

1132:

Is it not a convention to use contemporary names of works as named by the authors and known by their cultures at the time of composition? Why does this page choose to say "In the Old Testament book Ecclesiastes" when this was not applicable at the

1490:

these seem to be taking up a lot of space, and look quite awkward next to the long table of units. I would think that the definitions section should also be the first section listed in the article as well, followed by the measurements section.

2850:... except the last time I looked, there was only one article per three orders of magnitude. It looks like that's changed. I'd support condensing both time and length (shouldn't that be distance, not length?) into articles for powers of 1000. 143:

To classify Newton's conception of time (which is widely regarded as being disproven, by Einstein and others) as "realist" is amusing. A more accurate term might be "biblical" since Newton took his inspiration directly from Christian dogma.

1147:

Well, the 2nd view includes both that AND the duration of events AND how we sequence events, AND compare the motions of objects, So how is this new 3rd view distinct - and who else besides the editor would be a source for this 3rd view?

302:

time. Regularly recurring events and objects with apparent periodic motion have long served as standards for units of time. Examples are the apparent motion of the sun across the sky, the phases of the moon, and the swing of a pendulum.

2720:, thus making one interesting article out of ~40 unattractive stubs. Most of the other "Orders of magnitude" articles are likewise combined rather than busted up. (An exception is distance -- 1 E xx m. We can go beat up on those later.) 846:

There is a note on the URL: "Note: Contrary to the exact wording of the above statute, Standard Time does not change with time of year. In practice, the time in effect (the Civil Time) is either Standard Time or Daylight-Saving Time."

1580:

It can be found in Kant's Critique of Pure reason, (under I. TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF ELEMENTS, FIRST PART. TRANSCENDENTAL AESTHETIC, SECTION II. Of Time, SS 5 Metaphysical Exposition of this Conception) the following argument:

102:

This is one of those controversial subjects that seems to spark heated debates among people, and I know that the third talk page will have a whole bunch of arguments. For those new to the subject but very interested I've written a

3027:. (In particular, I was thinking perhaps of using a "new" "sortable table", which I'd be happy to try and figure out.) Of course we'd leave the big names such as "second", "millisecond", with their respective articles for now. -- 1494:

separate these into two major sections. The multiple and different subsection headers in this section are also very confusing, and the use of subsection headers should overall be minimized to only being used when necessary.

3090:

Every problem has it's solution with time! (Pun was not intended here. meuh!) I'll be happy to help you out after this problem... Unless... (Oh oh!)... (I just took a look at what you're talking about with metre (ie.:

3455:

I am OK with keeping the talk here, to keep it intact. But I would like to see those two somewhat unsightly blocks disappear from the top of the article itself. Any objections? And how is the agreed-upon merger going?

1432:

The recent edits to the lede that begins "Time, in colloquial terms..." does NOT use colloquial terms. THe lede was far more intelligible the way it was just a day or 2 or 3 ago. I recommend a complete revert of the

1068:

Yes, what does "...which evolved in tandem with consciousness, rather than a 'reality'..." even *mean*? Evolution is a *temporal process*, and time cannot develop in accordance with it. 17:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

1822:

As a leading proponent of the theory, anything he says about the theory will be interpreted as somehow part of the theory - and commentary on & criticism of his explanations is appropriate for scholarly work.

1576:

This needs to be cited: "Immanuel Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, described time as an a priori intuition that allows us (together with the other a priori intuition, space) to comprehend sense experience."

1336:, with the sides representing the 4D directions of up/down, north/south, east/west, and past/future. A given moment or event in 4D space-time would be a particular point within the tesseract, with coordinates ( 1625:

Hawking could also be criticized for limiting his conception of time to the realist view - as though the word referred to some entity that can "begin to exist" rather than being a fundamental structure of our

2549:

is a unit of measurement, which is specific and different enough to warrant its own article with its own history and etymology. Now, I do think that all the E-18 etc. is repeating everything that exists in

1615:

Btw, it seems to me that others would understand what I meant if I said that the North Star (& much of the Northern celestial sky) is roughly north of the North Pole - so, it is not entirely meaningless

2432:). Also, I think we agree for the title being lowercase, but unfortunately, there are no references, otherwise I would be making the name change. ("millisecond" is more commonly used than the 1 E... term)-- 1951:

inplodes then restarts like the phoenix. in the matter of quantem matter of time however, one could work out that the state of time was edited and in such state caused the paradox known as the big bang."

3095:) and realize that the same problem is happening there as well. Do you think we should try and get some people from the metre article to way-in on this discussion so we could have a uniform "standard"? -- 1662:

Other Sources for Hawking saying time began with big bang & that it is meaningless to say otherwise. Once he talks about "meaninglessness" he is entering the philosophical arena - not just physics -

1226:

and I'm sure the majority will agree with me as this is often quoted in literature, media, by religious leaders, and so on, for that interpretation. I don't think predestination is generally excepted. --

1791:

What he talks about and what the theory states are two entirely different things. He can talk about his favorite movie but that doesn't take away from the fact that the scope of the big bang theory is

2375:? (Rhetorical question) I believe it is and I believe this denominator is the article "time". I believe all of these articles should, if they are not merged, have a reference back to that main article. 1864:

in article. Hawking has said some things that MANY people have interpreted as part of the theory - perhaps he was just carelessly using language. Inquiry demands that careless language be cleaned up --

922:

I am checking some of the citations/definitions existing on the current page and so far I couldn't find Ralph Waldo Emerson's and Jean Piaget's. Do you have any idea from where (which book) it came?

3418:). I think the editor that started these articles knew Knowledge wouldn't accept the superscript. Anyways, all of this kind of pisses me off because we still don't seem to explain why the table of 3234:

It's not nonsense. If all these articles are merged, we still need labels for the various orders. I've proposed 10 etc. rather than E-4 etc. That was in reply to CyclePat's summary item number 2.

444:

This morning I changed "Two distinct views exist on the meaning of time" to "Two distinct views exist on the nature of time." JimWae changed it back suggesting that my change entails that there

716:. Einstein incorporated in 1905 time changes keyed to the spatial changes well known to Galileo in 1632. I'll try to fix that part about time "seeming to slow down" maybe when I get time (sic). 3134:

1. It's my understanding that Guy, Zginder, Joe Kress, Qrystal, Hult and myself (a good community consensus) all agree that we should merge the "1 E... s" articles into "Order of magnitude".

1277:

is a base unit). But that choice is analogous to the choice of axioms in geometry: given a set of choices you get a particular system, but if you chance your choices you get a different one.

1241:

Are encyclopedia entries allowed to ask philosophical questions in the form of questions? This one does in the second paragraph. I personally think someone should fix that, but I don't know.

3138:

1.1 It also appears that most people oppose merging information from "Second" into the article time. (so these articles, such as nanosecond, kilosecond, etc...) would not be merged into

1897:

All the more reason for philosophers to chime in & for their commentary on naive notions (traceable to Hawking himself) about "Time and the Big Bang" to be noted in the article --

490:) is naturally going to regress into a disclamer intoduction such as "there are lots of debates about the nature of time." (This one basically qualifies as a disclaimer intro anyway.) 674:

20:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Time is not the thing measured, but the system used to measure...it is wholely subjective and always with reference to some local repeating phenomenon.

289:

System of distinguishing events: a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events.

697:

There was an US inventor who published a book on the issue of time, 4th dimension etc. Anybody remembers the name? IIRC, he used to work on medical tools or something like that.--

2846:

Sorry, I was talking to CyclePat, not you. For my 2¢, I think there are more "critical" times than temperatures, masses, or velocities - we should have a series of articles like

1679:"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." 3641:

I think it's a good idea to combine the 10 E-16 etc. articles, maybe by halves. One half for positive exponents and the other half for negative exponents. However, The articles

956:

absolute/relational debate, as well as in the related debate centring on arguments such as McTaggart's, the notion of time being real isn't expressed in terms of its being an

2341:

picosecond are decent subjects, and once we get to the minutes / hours order of magnitude we should go with the dominant usage and move to year, decade, century and so on.

843:

The Department of Transportation is in charge. I believe that they can authorize changes (such as time zone boundaries) without new legislation - you can always ask them.

3580:

anything. This is exactly what's wrong with the current set of "Es". Each is just a tiny bit of randomness; together they might actually convey something interesting.

1284:

In fact, length is defined indirectly, via the velocity of light. The definition is carefully worded so it defines length, not velocity -- for backward compatibility.

892:

I dont think you can refute this concept, as we know the signals the brain uses are electrical impulses, and we know that these signals dont work at an infinite rate.

624:

Is there really such thing? AFAIK time is only quantized in very exotic theories like LQG. Planck time is simply a unit (as the Planck Time article correctly states).

170:

the simplest definition of time which is not self referential is-- a man made system of cataloguing experiences by means of comparisons to countable cycling patterns.

2371:

The merger I'm proposing has to deal with the idea that all of these articles are essentially "mathematical" reasoning or "denominators". Is it possible to find the

818: 107:

about time. For those who know a little more (than I might), you'll gain an objective perspective. I'm always open to criticism, but please try to be gentle.

979:

If your refering to my contributions, I don't mean to refer to it as an entity, simply as an illusiary concept, perhapes. So if that was infered, dismiss.

2702:

might be written, especially covering their technical importance. (Someone I saw here said they had come looking for help reading their Microsoft manual.)

2382:. I slightly suggested this during the merger nomination. The thing is almost all of these articles have no "sources" explaining the "examples." Yes, 239:

does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows", that objects "move through", or that is a "container" for events. This view is in the tradition of

508:

PS: Besides theres no need to pepper this fish as a philosophical dish from the get go: A solid intro - one which states the "realist" concept (ie. "

421:

While this is not untrue, it is not very specific. How is this different from other kinds of location, such as locations in space? How does the word

574:. Note that flowery language peppered with references to particular philosophers neither equates to "more neutral", nor to "more sourced" writing. - 104: 2797:. Both contain lots of interesting subject matter beyond the lists of various "timings." My suggestion is to merge all the "capital E" lists into 2554:, and should only be presented in relation to other orders of magnitude anyways. Not to mention, the notation with the capital E is awful! Both 1689:

To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question because there is nothing south of the South Pole.'

1001: 3114:. This is downright silly, including time and second and the like in this. Make a clean proposal without it, and it might be worth discussing. 2018:

Standard version, English Revised version, Webster Bible, and Young Literal Translation. I know that the quote does not come from any of these.

3335:

In response to removing the templates, if you remove them from the time article you need to change the template on every page to merge with

2364:

be removed (i.e: Egyptian history, etc...) and something should be indicated that leads them back to a main article which, again I believe is

520:- is just going to kick it into the philosophical domain anyway. Hense calmeth down thy horse. The philosophy will make a great section 2. - 386:

Lede is unacceptable. Write something, anything, then write all the caveats people like. Enough avoiding disclaimers for a separate article.

3216:

What in the world are you talking about? Why would there be any E or e, uppercase or lowercase, if they were merged? This discussion is

2081:

in terms of references for the information provided in most of these articles. What next... Are we going to have an article that for...

1958: 1936: 1915: 1882: 1841: 1807: 1758: 1395: 1363: 1773:

Hawking never pretends to confine his remarks to physics - he repeatedly discusses philosophers. This, along with his use of the word

2997:, merge all the "E" stubs into one article - it's a drag not having more context in each one anyway. Leave time & second alone -- 2759:

but the structure of the orders of magnitude should match that of meters, with one article per three orders of magnitude (and delete

1637:

I have moved the "TIme & the Big Bang" section out from under the physics section, as it is not just a topic for physics alone --

3739: 3173: 3016: 2802: 2595:—these articles illustrate timescales in relation to one another, and should not be merged into the historical, etc. discussion at 2499:

be merged into any other article. It has more than sufficient content to justy its existence. All other articles listed, including

1751:

WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY THE THEORY STOPS THERE! Physics depends on testable predictions, not fancy thoughts on maybe or might be!

764:? Would a new section here be best or a new article on the religous aspects of time be better? Would including a link to this site 3623:, as these articles need to be more general overviews/introductions to serve as encyclopedia entries. They might be merged under 2828: 2368:, and will guide users in finding better references. (p.s.: Better references are needed and we could probably use the same ones) 1084: 272: 1995:

As believers in progressive development, we ignore the older explanations and wholeheartedly give our assent to the most recent.

3363: 822: 3594:

Then perhaps they should be merged into a single separate list article, rather than cluttering up this already long article.

817:

Does anyone know if there is a U.S. law that requires people to keep time-of-day according to the time disseminated by the

658:

their three dimensions, no such “object” of time is available in the real world with which to compare an interval of time.

3291:

how to use anchored links in redirects? Do you plan to do so? There is really a whole lot missing in this discussion.

2967: 2882: 2474: 1013: 742:

show them displaced laterally, but wanted them embedded. There is an illustration which seems to have equal-size cubes in

760:

Where would be the appropriate place to write about religous views on the concept of time for example those discussed at

3399: 2847: 1704: 1547: 633:

Chronons were once proposed as a particle of time and some sci fi shows such as star trek use Chroniton particles, etc.

3024: 2810: 326: 3702:. If I'm not mistaken the "modified proposal" (which I can't find distinctly) is to merge the "1E+/-X" articles into 3685:

Considering the volume of cruft up there, doubtful any newcomers will volunteer to catch up & weigh in. Even if

1255:

the question, just presenting a question in philosophy. A convenient way of explaining the problem in that field. —

3703: 3624: 3545: 3472: 3419: 3336: 3020: 2977: 2949: 2806: 2798: 2717: 2567: 2551: 2508: 2454: 2413: 2313: 2041: 1412:

article is not desirable, but could be necessary if the authors are deficient in ability to communicate to humans.

1030: 38: 3378:). (But that's probably another problem for perhaps not a merger but ensuring coherence between the articles: ie: 2404:

which staes "100 billion (1011) years -- If the Universe is closed, the estimated total lifetime of the Universe".

1987:

Kant—space and time are ways that the mind intuits the juxtaposition and succession of the appearances of objects.

1033:} which supposes that time is not linear but multidimensional. I'll try to add something on this at a later time. 2768: 2709:

really a term in use anywhere? I doubt it. )Km and Kg yes; but kilosecond? Scientists would just say 10 seconds.)

2512: 2372: 866: 416:

Time refers to the universal means of locating a personal or collective experience relative to other experiences.

252: 3015:

with almost everything that has been said : And as Hult said (23:48, 4 December 2007) "The result would be like

945: 1984:

Leibniz—space and time are mental concepts of relations that are based on properties of things in themselves.

1399: 1367: 3711: 3168:

The E notation must be an allusion to a calculator's display. Better (and more universal) notation would be

3079: 2855: 2776: 1962: 1940: 1919: 1886: 1845: 1811: 1762: 1543: 1533: 1322:

Can anyone explain what the tesseract is doing here exactly? And if so, what on earth the caption means? --

1182: 601: 516:") of time was deprecated by special relativity (in science anyway) and the older is therefore only a local 3540:-- this merge request strikes me as a very bad idea. the individual "10 En s" articles are perfeclty valid 1800:

and the tools in the theory do not allow any information from before the event to remain after the event.

1722:"However, Hawking never said any such thing, and I was almost banned for defending science from sophistry." 3304: 3225: 1259: 944:

PS I am unaware of whether this theory previously exists, and if it does, please reference me. Thank you.

295: 3362:

Zginder raises a valid point. Further to that, we would need to move this discussion to the talk page of

1380:

just need to re-edit the article or roll it back to a previous version. Something even you could do :).

1114: 980: 905: 235:

the duration of events and the intervals between them, and compare the motions of objects. In this view,

3654: 2604: 1649: 1134: 994: 644: 625: 355:. The measurement of time has also occupied scientists and technologists, and was a prime motivation in 3287:(does the discussion then still belong here, or maybe better at the orders of magnitude talk page?). 3585: 3553: 3503: 3495: 3239: 3181: 2985: 2952:. NB This is not a proposal to close this discussion on all the articles just the ones listed above. 2837: 2824: 2816: 2741: 2647: 1954: 1932: 1911: 1878: 1837: 1803: 1754: 1692: 1391: 1359: 1227: 1216: 1080: 1072: 965: 732: 610: 579: 525: 499: 2621:

is a thorough and interesting article. It covers the use, history, science, & psychology of the

1737:"Once he talks about "meaninglessness" he is entering the philosophical arena - not just physics" -- 3670:

is needed? Let's settle this soon, so we can get those 2 unsightly templates out of the article --

3561: 3407: 3387: 856: 803: 746: 717: 713: 360: 89: 81: 76: 64: 59: 2082: 1034: 1005: 926: 3753: 3707: 3480: 3445: 3428: 3415: 3325: 3295: 3199: 3158: 3100: 3075: 3032: 2904: 2851: 2772: 2570:

article, and that's fine. Millisecond and other SI derivatives of the second should redirect to

2332:

No thanks. The existing articles are good, they give an idea of things of about that magnitude (

1514: 1168: 772: 322: 318: 223:

A contrasting view is that time is part of the fundamental intellectual structure (together with

119: 3153:

2. It's also my understanding that Qrystal, Guy and myself believe the E should be lowercase. --

1590:

I was wondering if anyone can actually put it in correct formatting, for I'm no good with that.

1171:

at all. It does not agree with what is on the NT page. I think someone is sneaking in some OR.

684: 671: 371:. This article looks at some of the main philosophical and scientific issues relating to time. 3736: 3599: 3300: 3221: 2963: 2915: 2878: 2470: 1256: 1009: 240: 3190:

Thank you for feedback. Will begin discussed implementations soon. p.s.: found 2nd article.

2264: 2259: 277:

a nonspatial linear continuum in which events occur in an apparently irreversible succession.

3675: 3650: 3549: 3461: 3395: 3273: 3002: 2600: 2308: 2254: 2055: 1981:

Newton—space and time exist independently, apart from all things. They are God's sensations.

1718:

I've used up my reverts for the day. Could somebody AT LEAST remove the blogging that reads

1700: 1466: 1451: 1340:). Admittedly, my description is probably more understandable than what's in the article. — 1285: 1242: 1172: 870: 1532:

I found this, I have no qualification to re-solve the equasions, please review this paper.

435:

meaningless, often overlooked by some scientists who try to create the myth of objectivity.

3766: 3581: 3499: 3491: 3235: 3177: 2981: 2833: 2820: 2737: 2643: 2421: 2066: 2029: 1591: 1563: 1483: 1341: 1076: 961: 606: 575: 521: 495: 452: 315: 2085:

and convert this to minutes or hours, each one of them having there seperate articles? --

1684: 800: 731:

Husserl? It is so much incomrehensible that it must be from German philosophy. Thanks, --

3149:

article, "nanosecond", "kilosecond", were suggest to be merged into the article "Second"

1977:

In a nutshell, four different accounts of space and time could be described as follows:

3699: 3557: 3471:

The way this is going, It's going to take a while. Does anyone object if I rewrite the

2516: 2392:

which states "130 attoseconds – the shortest pulses of laser light yet created (2007)".

1587:

2. Time is a necessary representation, lying at the foundation of all our intuitions."

559: 262: 2716:

of timing magnitudes (i.e., the capital-E articles), IMO, could be neatly merged into

797: 3476: 3441: 3424: 3321: 3195: 3154: 3096: 3028: 2900: 2433: 2349: 2343: 2086: 1996: 1861: 1423: 1413: 768: 513: 247:, in which time, rather than a thing to be measured, is part of the measuring system. 244: 108: 3730: 3595: 3541: 3354: 3340: 3145:

1.2. Despite the opposition found in 1.1's suggestion regarding the merge into the

2959: 2923: 2874: 2575: 2466: 2019: 2014: 1857: 1507: 784: 743: 284: 217: 3070:

into another, etc. For that matter, it would be nice to do that for the series on

359:. Time is also a matter of significant social importance, having economic value (" 1510:

for guidelines on including and pruning external links in/from articles as well.

1175: 865:

ITU, the authority for time? Do you have a source for that? I would point to the

118:

The page that you created is quite interesting. I don't have objections to it. --

3694: 3690: 3671: 3628: 3521: 3457: 3269: 3191: 3123:

Please correct me if I'm wrong in this summary. (I focused on two key points :

2998: 2732:

aside for now, and turning our attention just to the lists of magnitudes. I say

2699: 2695: 2500: 2458: 2379: 2333: 2186: 2078: 2051: 1898: 1865: 1824: 1782: 1742: 1738: 1727: 1696: 1671: 1638: 1627: 1617: 1606: 1434: 1323: 1300: 1198: 1149: 1119: 1052: 698: 675: 634: 590: 541: 467: 436: 426: 401: 390: 375: 180: 171: 160: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3475:

into a list. It would be easier then to edit the article. The table is hard. --

1834:

as well assume that TIME BEFORE THE BIG BANG IS MEANINGLESS. Now move along.

3686: 3383: 2706: 2504: 2462: 2220: 1667: 1333: 1107: 765: 761: 348: 330: 204:

One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a

1600:

Hawking has said Time before the Big Bang is meaningless & does not exist

3403: 3375: 3316: 364: 356: 311: 205: 47: 17: 3779: 1388:

Oh, it's gone now... Was weird to see such thing on well-respected site...

3367: 1273:

It is true that the SI has time as one of its fundamental quantities (the

1103:

What is the source for the first sentence? I am familiar with this quote:

3573: 3379: 3092: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3047: 2937: 2919: 2896: 2870: 2760: 2751:

Are you seriously talking about merging things into this article or into

2389: 2383: 2151: 2142: 2137: 2132: 2127: 2122: 2117: 2112: 2105: 802:) to include terms from general relativity. Better to accept relativity. 299: 232: 213: 3498:) 01:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC) (small correction made to prior comment 3398:.) (Break - 30 minutes research) You know... at this point I looked at 3268:

article. Barring objections, I move they be removed 48 hours from now --

1446:

The current one is absolutely dreadful. It isn't even accurate. Time is

384:

The existing first paragraph of the intro was inserted with the comment

3715: 3679: 3658: 3633: 3603: 3589: 3565: 3526: 3507: 3484: 3465: 3449: 3432: 3357: 3343: 3329: 3308: 3277: 3264:

SO, are there any objections to removing the merger templates from the

3243: 3229: 3203: 3185: 3162: 3104: 3083: 3036: 3006: 2989: 2971: 2926: 2908: 2886: 2859: 2841: 2780: 2745: 2651: 2614:

There are multiple different merge discussions going on at once here.

2608: 2578: 2519: 2478: 2436: 2401: 2395: 2354: 2303: 2298: 2293: 2288: 2283: 2274: 2269: 2200: 2195: 2181: 2176: 2171: 2166: 2161: 2156: 2089: 2059: 2022: 1999: 1966: 1944: 1923: 1901: 1890: 1868: 1849: 1827: 1815: 1785: 1766: 1745: 1730: 1708: 1674: 1641: 1630: 1620: 1609: 1594: 1566: 1551: 1536: 1517: 1469: 1454: 1437: 1426: 1416: 1344: 1326: 1303: 1288: 1262: 1245: 1230: 1219: 1201: 1185: 1152: 1137: 1122: 1055: 1037: 1017: 971: 960:. I can't think offhand of anyone who has thought of it in that way. -- 929: 908: 873: 859: 806: 777: 749: 735: 720: 701: 687: 678: 647: 637: 628: 613: 593: 582: 544: 528: 502: 470: 455: 439: 429: 404: 393: 378: 344: 280: 183: 174: 163: 122: 111: 2416:. I also believe this table should somehow be merged with the article 1777:

makes comment on his theories by philosophers entirely appropriate. A

841: 3646: 3620: 3391: 3350: 3071: 2948:

from the merger request and proposing have all the others merge into

2945: 2794: 2752: 2729: 2724:

I think we could make progress on this lengthy discussion by setting

2672: 2664: 2571: 2559: 2546: 2496: 2450: 2429: 2319: 2249: 2244: 2239: 2230: 2225: 2215: 2210: 2205: 2070: 1274: 389:

more accessible (imho), within 2 days. Then we can work from there --

266: 228: 1465:

Echh, I just read the footnote on "force"...revert, revert, revert.

193:-- acknowledges disagreement, is less one-sided, and has sources == 1527: 220:

subscribed, in which time itself is something that can be measured.

1294:

All known properties of time follow directly from this definition.

1181:

I agree that this paragraph appears to be gibberish as-written. --

1051:

Aren't you suggesting that time is "really" multidimensional? - --

555: 425:

help us? What about events that nobody alive has "experienced"? --

307: 287:

Digital Multimedia Encyclopedia, gives the definition of time as "

224: 209: 257:

the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the

3642: 3616: 3517: 3284: 3265: 3257: 3146: 3139: 2941: 2790: 2725: 2688: 2684: 2676: 2668: 2639: 2618: 2596: 2555: 2542: 2425: 2417: 2386:, has one... but what about the rest of them. Take for example: 2365: 2074: 1778: 368: 258: 3410:. "For example, 6.0221415 E+23 or 6.0221415 e23 is the same as 2069:. Some of these pages are repeating information. In particular 2037:

Consensus is firmly against including TIME or SECOND in merger.

294:

Many fields avoid the problem of defining time itself by using

2680: 852: 783:

This reference seems confused (perhaps just out of date). The

683:

Exactly the point. Why suggest what "clocks" do time must do?

352: 25: 3649:

should definately NOT be merged in any way, shape or form. --

1029:

considered together with the idea of probable realities (see

914:

Anonymous Dissident 10^(-23)seconds if I am recalling right.

2398:

which states "1277 million years—half-life of potassium-40".

2378:

To answer your question. I see a bunch of things wrong with

1798:

the theory is that this space-time began with the big bang

466:

another 60 due to a babylonian bias towards all things 60

2899:

because this article's history may have an importance. --

2625:

of time. There is need to fill it up with a lot of lists.

558:. However I understand that a long journey that uses the 3294:

What about the fact that most of the existing links are

589:

archives. Btw, which part do you consider "flowery"? --

571: 567: 563: 562:

editing method - one that ultimately reduces something

551: 3440:

on the time page to gather more community feedback. --

2545:

itself is a huge concept, with a lot of history; the

2412:

That leaves us with a table: Which we already have at

1685:

http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/news/2005-06/feb/27.shtml

3548:. Merging would be rather like merging everything in 1332:

The tesseract is supposed to represent 4-dimensional

1143:

The third view has time as the period between events

3011:I'm glad to see the warm turn-out and discusion. I 2409:

All of this "un-cited" information must be removed.

1513:Hope this helps to improve the article. Good luck! 834:CHAPTER 6 - WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AND STANDARD TIME 2789:I'm suggesting merging nothing at all into either 2599:. I see no issue with the current organization. 653:Measurement & Time dilation need clarification 550:Time is a "controversy?" Its not as bad as it was 3366:. I would like to point out that the documentary 2073:appears to have the same history as this article 3130:Should we change the E uppercase to e lowercase? 306:Time has historically been closely related with 2511:, and all 1 E… s articles meet the criteria of 3516:I've moved the merge block down to the header 3283:Edit conflict--yes, it should be removed from 1781:encyclopedia cannot take sides in a dispute -- 1356:but I am quite sure it needs to be addressed. 819:National Institute of Standards and Technology 476:New lede and the regressions of excess cookery 3406:. It is explained that the magnitudes are in 3374:(Test to see if wiki has an article on that: 2767:viable units. The other half should maybe be 2065:The merger request is based on the policy of 1167:I don't think that is an accurate account of 8: 2895:. I agree. P.s.: There is no need to delete 1407:Keeping the Lede Intelligible to Lay Readers 988:You need to add a jiffy wich is .01 seconds 791:in Knowledge, or more succintly in the book 2040:Proposal now is to merge E## articles into 1668:http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html 1108:http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html 762:http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?AID=74335 367:of the limited time in each day and in our 329:, and the human perception is only a local 298:that specify the units of measurement that 196:Two distinct views exist on the meaning of 3520:, in case this debate is still raging. -- 2495:Under no circumstances should the article 1482:The article as written, does not pass the 3729:Catherine Soanes and Sara Hawker (2005). 2513:Knowledge:Handling trivia#Trivia articles 1856:Move yourself. You are the one inserting 1095:Stephen Hawking and the Beginning of Time 693:An US inventor wrote on the issue of time 3780:http://www.ghandchi.com/312-SpaceEng.htm 2976:Support merging all the Capital-Es into 2428:repeats the part of the same history as 1973:Famous explanations about space and time 363:") as well as personal value, due to an 321:. According to the scientific theory of 3732:'time' in the Oxford English Dictionary 3721: 2046:Talk is kept here for continuity's sake 3762: 3751: 2922:form the merge as per above redirect. 343:Time has long been a major subject of 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2515:and should be deleted, not merged. — 1794:limited to this particular space-time 767:be inappropriate for this article? -- 333:quantity which has meaning only in a 325:, the concept of time depends on the 216:. This is the realist view, to which 7: 1929:Can we agree on this wording then? 600:Of course I refer to the concept of 3665:No objections to modified proposal? 3370:has an interesting subtitle called 2667:to keep that article separate from 1523:Time Dimension To Become Space-like 231:) within which we sequence events, 24: 3174:Orders of magnitude (temperature) 3017:Orders of magnitude (temperature) 2803:Orders of magnitude (temperature) 1309:How do we compare time intervals? 918:Time as "unreal" & Psychology 670:and is not found in the article. 2634:(Sorry, I meant to say there is 1741:19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC) --- 1528:http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0820v1 461:Other Recent change to standards 273:The American Heritage Dictionary 29: 3364:talk:Orders of magnitude (time) 2873:has been made into a redirect. 1450:considerd a "force" in physics! 823:United States Naval Observatory 3761:templatestyles stripmarker in 3518:Time#Definitions and standards 2831:) 23:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 1518:23:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 1470:12:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 1455:12:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 1438:03:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 1427:01:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 1417:20:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 1402:) 09:32, August 27, 2007 (UTC) 1370:) 09:25, August 27, 2007 (UTC) 837:SUBCHAPTER IX - STANDARD TIME 831:TITLE 15 - COMMERCE AND TRADE 688:23:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC) 679:21:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC) 648:18:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 638:21:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC) 629:18:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 1: 3604:12:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 3590:18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 3566:13:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC) 3508:01:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 3485:22:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC) 3466:08:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 3450:20:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 3433:19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 3358:13:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 3344:13:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 3330:06:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 3309:04:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 3278:04:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 3176:for a nice looking example. 2927:02:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 2663:There is enough to say about 2098: 1552:15:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 930:17:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC) 855:is the recognized authority. 614:00:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 594:21:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 583:20:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 545:19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 529:18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 503:18:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 471:14:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 440:13:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 430:01:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 405:01:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 400:literature on the subject. -- 3400:Orders of magnitude (length) 3244:19:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 3230:08:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 3204:05:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 3186:17:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC) 3163:06:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC) 3105:05:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC) 3084:18:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 3037:05:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC) 3007:20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 2990:17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 2972:13:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 2909:05:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC) 2887:13:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 2860:18:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 2848:orders of magnitude (length) 2842:23:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 2781:23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 2746:22:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 2652:23:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 2609:21:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 2579:03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 2562:could suggest the reader to 2520:02:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 2479:23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 2437:23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 2355:16:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 2090:05:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 2023:23:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 2000:15:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 1967:09:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 1945:01:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1924:00:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1902:00:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1891:00:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1869:00:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1850:00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1828:00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1816:00:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1786:00:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1767:00:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1746:00:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1731:19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 1709:08:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 1675:07:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 1652:moved from article to here: 1642:06:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 1631:05:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 1621:05:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 1610:04:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 1595:23:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 1567:23:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 1537:12:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC) 972:21:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 909:08:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC) 860:01:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 807:05:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 778:22:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC) 750:07:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC) 736:04:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC) 721:04:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC) 456:17:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 339:between object and observer. 184:00:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 164:00:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 3716:09:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 3680:06:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 3659:05:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3634:00:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 3527:22:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 3025:Orders of magnitude (speed) 2811:Orders of magnitude (speed) 2801:. The result would be like 2769:orders of magnitude (years) 2060:07:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 1192:Natural Logarithms and time 1056:04:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC) 1038:18:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 702:11:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 394:20:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 379:17:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 175:21:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 123:17:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 112:00:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 3798: 3704:orders of magnitude (time) 3625:Orders of magnitude (time) 3615:merging these with either 3546:Orders of magnitude (time) 3473:orders of magnitude (time) 3420:Orders of magnitude (time) 3372:Introduction to timescales 3337:Orders of magnitude (time) 3021:Orders of magnitude (mass) 2978:Orders of magnitude (time) 2950:Orders of magnitude (time) 2807:Orders of magnitude (mass) 2799:Orders of magnitude (time) 2718:Orders of magnitude (time) 2568:Orders of magnitude (time) 2552:Orders of magnitude (time) 2509:Orders of magnitude (time) 2455:Orders of magnitude (time) 2414:Orders of magnitude (time) 2314:Orders of magnitude (time) 2042:Orders of magnitude (time) 1875:started at the big bang. 1345:17:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 1327:17:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 1202:06:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1186:19:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1176:12:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1123:15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC) 1031:Many-Worlds Interpretation 880:Past present and future... 2373:Lowest common denominator 2109:(removed as per redirect) 1304:19:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 1263:18:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC) 1246:17:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC) 1153:07:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC) 1138:23:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC) 1018:12:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 867:International Time Bureau 796:believe relativity. See: 787:for example is discussed 253:Oxford English Dictionary 2638:to merge the lists into 2574:. Simple as that! ;) -- 2013:The article quotes from 1289:21:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 1231:20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 874:01:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC) 3349:Also, are you removing 3194:. Will do also. end. -- 2936:Straw poll on removing 2763:). Half those articles 2712:Now finally, all these 1796:and the very nature of 1220:12:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 1197:needs to be removed. -- 1157: 602:absolute space and time 296:operational definitions 3532:The merge debate again 2705:On the other hand, is 2694:Decent articles about 2679:any more than I would 2424:and repetition. (ie.: 2028:Request for Merger of 1165: 756:Religous views on time 310:, most obviously with 269:, regarded as a whole. 3256:Remove template from 3127:What should we merge? 2336:for example). But I 1562:Where are the notes? 1484:Good Article criteria 1269:Fundametal quantities 1161: 1004:comment was added by 995:The Unreality of Time 540:with a disclaimer. -- 410:Other Recent addition 154:a very different view 139:Use of term "realist" 42:of past discussions. 3554:History of the world 3544:sub-articles of the 3402:and then clicked on 2736:What do others say? 2420:so as to remove any 2323:(per talk consensus) 1384:RE: Strange wordings 1375:RE: Strange wordings 840:defines legal time. 3388:Geologic time scale 2671:. I wouldn't merge 2642:. Typing too fast. 2077:. Another issue is 1100:accessible to us." 981:Anonymous Dissident 951:The reality of time 946:Anonymous Dissident 828:UNITED STATES CODE 714:Galilean relativity 1650:User:76.170.70.172 1544:Teardrop onthefire 1534:Teardrop onthefire 1251:I don't see it as 1207:Ecclesiastes Quote 1183:Christopher Thomas 1128:Naming conventions 774:£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 512:", or better yet " 323:special relativity 319:general relativity 189:New Intro Proposal 3564: 3416:Avogadro's number 2832: 2819:comment added by 2353: 2329: 2328: 1969: 1957:comment added by 1947: 1935:comment added by 1926: 1914:comment added by 1893: 1881:comment added by 1852: 1840:comment added by 1818: 1806:comment added by 1769: 1757:comment added by 1711: 1695:comment added by 1403: 1394:comment added by 1371: 1362:comment added by 1169:Noether's theorem 1158:Noether's theorem 1088: 1075:comment added by 1021: 793:Spacetime Physics 775: 707:absolute motion?? 488:reformation, etc. 275:defines time as " 255:defines time as " 241:Gottfried Leibniz 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3789: 3782: 3777: 3771: 3770: 3764: 3759: 3757: 3749: 3747: 3746: 3726: 3639:Partial Support. 3560: 3550:Category:History 3413: 3396:period (geology) 3046:Support merging 2869:Update: article 2814: 2734:yes, merge them. 2347: 2309:1 E19 s and more 2099: 2095:List of articles 1952: 1930: 1909: 1876: 1835: 1801: 1752: 1690: 1389: 1357: 1351:Strange wordings 1070: 1000:— The preceding 999: 968: 773: 570:- begins with a 485:revolution : --> 483:capitalism : --> 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3797: 3796: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3778: 3774: 3765:at position 1 ( 3760: 3750: 3744: 3742: 3728: 3727: 3723: 3667: 3613:Strongly oppose 3534: 3411: 3261: 3121: 3112:Strongly oppose 2934: 2457:, and possibly 2422:content forking 2033: 2011: 1975: 1602: 1574: 1560: 1525: 1480: 1409: 1386: 1377: 1353: 1320: 1311: 1296: 1271: 1239: 1228:IronMaidenRocks 1217:IronMaidenRocks 1209: 1194: 1160: 1145: 1130: 1097: 966: 953: 938: 920: 882: 869:(BIH) instead. 815: 758: 728: 709: 695: 655: 643:misconception. 622: 554:, this much is 552:when I found it 486:socialism : --> 478: 463: 412: 327:spatial context 191: 156: 141: 100: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3795: 3793: 3784: 3783: 3772: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3666: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3636: 3627:, however. -- 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3572:But the entry 3569: 3568: 3533: 3530: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3453: 3452: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3412:6.0221415 × 10 3368:exploring time 3333: 3332: 3281: 3280: 3260: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3151: 3150: 3143: 3132: 3131: 3128: 3120: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3108: 3107: 3087: 3086: 3040: 3039: 3009: 2992: 2974: 2933: 2930: 2912: 2911: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2784: 2783: 2722: 2721: 2710: 2703: 2692: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2627: 2626: 2613: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2410: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2399: 2393: 2376: 2369: 2358: 2357: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2316: 2311: 2306: 2301: 2296: 2291: 2286: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2272: 2267: 2262: 2257: 2252: 2247: 2242: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2228: 2223: 2218: 2213: 2208: 2203: 2198: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2184: 2179: 2174: 2169: 2164: 2159: 2154: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2140: 2135: 2130: 2125: 2120: 2115: 2110: 2063: 2048: 2047: 2044: 2038: 2034: 2032: 2026: 2010: 2007: 2005: 1993: 1992: 1988: 1985: 1982: 1974: 1971: 1905: 1904: 1872: 1871: 1831: 1830: 1789: 1788: 1749: 1748: 1734: 1724: 1723: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1634: 1633: 1623: 1601: 1598: 1573: 1572:Citing Sources 1570: 1559: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1524: 1521: 1479: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1441: 1440: 1408: 1405: 1385: 1382: 1376: 1373: 1352: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1319: 1316: 1310: 1307: 1295: 1292: 1270: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1238: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1208: 1205: 1193: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1159: 1156: 1144: 1141: 1129: 1126: 1115:AThousandYoung 1096: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1023: 1022: 986: 985: 984: 983: 952: 949: 937: 934: 919: 916: 906:HeroInTraining 881: 878: 877: 876: 857:Carrionluggage 814: 811: 810: 809: 804:Carrionluggage 757: 754: 753: 752: 747:Carrionluggage 727: 724: 718:Carrionluggage 708: 705: 694: 691: 654: 651: 621: 618: 617: 616: 597: 596: 560:slippery slope 548: 547: 532: 531: 477: 474: 462: 459: 419: 418: 411: 408: 397: 396: 249: 248: 221: 190: 187: 178: 177: 169: 167: 155: 152: 151: 150: 140: 137: 132: 131: 126: 125: 115: 99: 96: 93: 92: 87: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3794: 3781: 3776: 3773: 3768: 3755: 3741: 3740:0-19-861022-X 3738: 3734: 3733: 3725: 3722: 3717: 3713: 3709: 3708:Potatoswatter 3705: 3701: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3677: 3673: 3664: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3640: 3637: 3635: 3632: 3631: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3614: 3611: 3610: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3579: 3578:comprehending 3575: 3571: 3570: 3567: 3563: 3559: 3555: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3539: 3536: 3535: 3531: 3529: 3528: 3525: 3524: 3519: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3482: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3451: 3447: 3443: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3421: 3417: 3409: 3405: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3385: 3381: 3377: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3342: 3338: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3318: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3297: 3292: 3288: 3286: 3279: 3275: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3262: 3259: 3255: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3183: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3160: 3156: 3148: 3144: 3141: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3129: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3118: 3113: 3110: 3109: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3089: 3088: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3076:Potatoswatter 3073: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2993: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2953: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2931: 2929: 2928: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2914:I decided to 2910: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2893:Good redirect 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2852:Potatoswatter 2849: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2773:Potatoswatter 2770: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2708: 2704: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2661: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2611: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2580: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2548: 2544: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2521: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2465:should stay. 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2449:The articles 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2438: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2408: 2403: 2400: 2397: 2394: 2391: 2388: 2387: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2374: 2370: 2367: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2356: 2351: 2346: 2345: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2330: 2322: 2321: 2317: 2315: 2312: 2310: 2307: 2305: 2302: 2300: 2297: 2295: 2292: 2290: 2287: 2285: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2276: 2273: 2271: 2268: 2266: 2263: 2261: 2258: 2256: 2253: 2251: 2248: 2246: 2243: 2241: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2232: 2229: 2227: 2224: 2222: 2219: 2217: 2214: 2212: 2209: 2207: 2204: 2202: 2199: 2197: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2188: 2185: 2183: 2180: 2178: 2175: 2173: 2170: 2168: 2165: 2163: 2160: 2158: 2155: 2153: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2144: 2141: 2139: 2136: 2134: 2131: 2129: 2126: 2124: 2121: 2119: 2116: 2114: 2111: 2108: 2107: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2097: 2096: 2092: 2091: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2062: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2045: 2043: 2039: 2036: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2025: 2024: 2021: 2016: 2008: 2006: 2003: 2001: 1998: 1989: 1986: 1983: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1972: 1970: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1959:76.170.70.172 1956: 1948: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1937:76.170.70.172 1934: 1927: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1916:76.170.70.172 1913: 1903: 1900: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1883:76.170.70.172 1880: 1870: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1842:76.170.70.172 1839: 1829: 1826: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1808:76.170.70.172 1805: 1799: 1795: 1787: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1759:76.170.70.172 1756: 1747: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1735: 1733: 1732: 1729: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1683: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1673: 1669: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1651: 1643: 1640: 1636: 1635: 1632: 1629: 1624: 1622: 1619: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1608: 1599: 1597: 1596: 1593: 1588: 1585: 1582: 1578: 1571: 1569: 1568: 1565: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1535: 1530: 1529: 1522: 1520: 1519: 1516: 1511: 1509: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1485: 1477: 1471: 1468: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1456: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1439: 1436: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1425: 1419: 1418: 1415: 1406: 1404: 1401: 1397: 1396:219.90.189.67 1393: 1383: 1381: 1374: 1372: 1369: 1365: 1364:219.90.189.67 1361: 1350: 1346: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1325: 1317: 1315: 1308: 1306: 1305: 1302: 1293: 1291: 1290: 1287: 1282: 1278: 1276: 1268: 1264: 1261: 1258: 1257:Laura Scudder 1254: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1244: 1236: 1232: 1229: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1218: 1212: 1206: 1204: 1203: 1200: 1191: 1187: 1184: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1174: 1170: 1164: 1155: 1154: 1151: 1142: 1140: 1139: 1136: 1135:59.101.13.133 1127: 1125: 1124: 1121: 1116: 1110: 1109: 1104: 1101: 1094: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1057: 1054: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1039: 1036: 1032: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 998: 996: 991: 990: 989: 982: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 969: 963: 959: 950: 948: 947: 942: 935: 933: 931: 928: 923: 917: 915: 911: 910: 907: 901: 897: 893: 890: 886: 879: 875: 872: 868: 864: 863: 862: 861: 858: 854: 848: 844: 842: 838: 835: 832: 829: 826: 824: 820: 813:Official time 812: 808: 805: 801: 798: 794: 790: 786: 782: 781: 780: 779: 776: 770: 766: 763: 755: 751: 748: 744: 740: 739: 738: 737: 734: 725: 723: 722: 719: 715: 706: 704: 703: 700: 692: 690: 689: 686: 681: 680: 677: 673: 667: 663: 659: 652: 650: 649: 646: 645:206.169.169.1 640: 639: 636: 631: 630: 627: 626:206.169.169.1 619: 615: 612: 608: 603: 599: 598: 595: 592: 587: 586: 585: 584: 581: 577: 573: 569: 566:to something 565: 561: 557: 553: 546: 543: 539: 534: 533: 530: 527: 523: 519: 515: 511: 507: 506: 505: 504: 501: 497: 491: 489: 487:tyranny : --> 484:tyranny : --> 475: 473: 472: 469: 460: 458: 457: 454: 449: 448: 442: 441: 438: 432: 431: 428: 424: 417: 414: 413: 409: 407: 406: 403: 395: 392: 387: 383: 382: 381: 380: 377: 372: 370: 366: 362: 361:time is money 358: 354: 350: 346: 341: 340: 336: 332: 328: 324: 320: 317: 313: 309: 304: 301: 297: 292: 290: 286: 282: 278: 274: 270: 268: 264: 260: 254: 246: 245:Immanuel Kant 242: 238: 234: 230: 226: 222: 219: 215: 211: 207: 203: 202: 201: 199: 194: 188: 186: 185: 182: 176: 173: 166: 165: 162: 153: 147: 146: 145: 138: 136: 128: 127: 124: 121: 120:Gray Porpoise 117: 116: 114: 113: 110: 106: 97: 91: 88: 85: 83: 80: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3775: 3743:. Retrieved 3731: 3724: 3706:. Thx much. 3668: 3638: 3629: 3612: 3577: 3537: 3522: 3515: 3454: 3371: 3334: 3301:Gene Nygaard 3293: 3289: 3282: 3222:Gene Nygaard 3217: 3170:10, 10, etc. 3169: 3152: 3133: 3122: 3111: 3041: 3012: 2994: 2954: 2935: 2913: 2892: 2868: 2764: 2756: 2733: 2723: 2713: 2635: 2622: 2612: 2592: 2591: 2563: 2342: 2337: 2318: 2104: 2094: 2093: 2083:6439 seconds 2064: 2049: 2015:Ecclesiastes 2012: 2009:Ecclesiastes 2004: 1994: 1976: 1949: 1928: 1906: 1873: 1832: 1797: 1793: 1790: 1774: 1750: 1725: 1717: 1661: 1647: 1603: 1589: 1586: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1561: 1531: 1526: 1512: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1481: 1447: 1420: 1410: 1390:— Preceding 1387: 1378: 1358:— Preceding 1354: 1337: 1321: 1312: 1297: 1283: 1279: 1272: 1252: 1240: 1213: 1210: 1195: 1166: 1162: 1146: 1131: 1111: 1105: 1102: 1098: 992: 987: 957: 954: 943: 939: 936:Time Paradox 924: 921: 912: 902: 898: 894: 891: 887: 883: 849: 845: 839: 836: 833: 830: 827: 816: 792: 788: 785:Twin paradox 759: 729: 710: 696: 682: 668: 664: 660: 656: 641: 632: 623: 620:Time quanta? 549: 537: 517: 509: 492: 482: 479: 464: 446: 445: 443: 433: 422: 420: 415: 398: 385: 373: 342: 338: 337:sense — ie. 334: 305: 293: 288: 276: 256: 250: 236: 218:Isaac Newton 197: 195: 192: 168: 157: 142: 133: 101: 70: 43: 37: 3700:WP:BOLDness 3695:millisecond 3691:microsecond 3651:Superpika66 3556:as cforks. 3192:Centisecond 3172:Again, see 2918:and remove 2815:—Preceding 2700:microsecond 2696:millisecond 2601:Spacepotato 2501:millisecond 2459:Millisecond 2380:millisecond 2334:millisecond 2187:Millisecond 1953:—Preceding 1931:—Preceding 1910:—Preceding 1877:—Preceding 1836:—Preceding 1802:—Preceding 1775:meaningless 1753:—Preceding 1691:—Preceding 1648:Comment by 1626:intellect-- 1286:Paul Koning 1243:Shinealight 1215:material.-- 1071:—Preceding 871:Paul Koning 285:Microsoft's 36:This is an 3745:2006-06-13 3698:stop your 3687:nanosecond 3582:Hult041956 3500:Hult041956 3492:Hult041956 3408:E notation 3384:time scale 3296:Easter egg 3236:Hult041956 3178:Hult041956 3058:into one, 2982:Hult041956 2932:Straw poll 2834:Hult041956 2821:Hult041956 2738:Hult041956 2707:kilosecond 2644:Hult041956 2505:kilosecond 2463:Kilosecond 2221:Kilosecond 1592:Goldencako 1564:Goldencako 1342:Loadmaster 1334:space-time 1077:Wireless99 967:Μελ Ετητης 962:Mel Etitis 789:ad nauseum 733:68.7.88.78 726:Tesseract? 572:first step 518:perception 453:Markgraeme 349:philosophy 316:Einstein's 149:engineers. 3754:cite book 3386:(music), 3376:Timescale 3317:magnitude 3074:as well. 2955:Support: 2517:Joe Kress 2002:Lestrade 1478:GA Review 1318:Tesseract 510:Euclidian 423:universal 365:awareness 357:astronomy 312:spacetime 212:occur in 208:in which 206:dimension 105:wikidiary 90:Archive 7 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 18:Talk:Time 3574:1 E-10 s 3477:CyclePat 3442:CyclePat 3425:CyclePat 3404:1 E+26 m 3380:duration 3322:CyclePat 3218:nonsense 3196:CyclePat 3155:CyclePat 3097:CyclePat 3093:1 E-24 m 3068:1 E-13 s 3064:1 E-14 s 3060:1 E-15 s 3056:1 E-16 s 3052:1 E-17 s 3048:1 E-18 s 3042:Oppose: 3029:CyclePat 2938:1 E-44 s 2920:1 E-44 s 2901:CyclePat 2897:1 E-44 s 2871:1 E-44 s 2829:contribs 2817:unsigned 2761:1 E-44 s 2564:See also 2434:CyclePat 2390:1 E-18 s 2384:1 E-44 s 2152:1 E-10 s 2143:1 E-11 s 2138:1 E-12 s 2133:1 E-15 s 2128:1 E-18 s 2123:1 E-21 s 2118:1 E-24 s 2113:1 E-25 s 2106:1 E-44 s 2087:CyclePat 2067:WP:CFORK 2030:WP:CFORK 1997:Lestrade 1955:unsigned 1933:unsigned 1912:unsigned 1879:unsigned 1838:unsigned 1804:unsigned 1755:unsigned 1726:Thanks-- 1705:contribs 1693:unsigned 1542:anyone? 1515:Dr. Cash 1424:DCDuring 1414:DCDuring 1392:unsigned 1360:unsigned 1237:Question 1085:contribs 1073:unsigned 1014:contribs 1002:unsigned 769:PinchasC 514:absolute 335:relative 331:observed 300:quantify 233:quantify 214:sequence 109:Dessydes 3596:Dhaluza 3355:Zginder 3353:, too? 3341:Zginder 3119:Summary 2968:Contrib 2960:Zginder 2924:Zginder 2916:Be Bold 2883:Contrib 2875:Zginder 2636:no need 2623:concept 2576:Qrystal 2475:Contrib 2467:Zginder 2402:1 E18 s 2396:1 E16 s 2304:1 E18 s 2299:1 E17 s 2294:1 E16 s 2289:1 E15 s 2284:1 E14 s 2275:1 E13 s 2270:1 E12 s 2265:1 E11 s 2260:1 E10 s 2201:1 E-1 s 2196:1 E-2 s 2182:1 E-4 s 2177:1 E-5 s 2172:1 E-6 s 2167:1 E-7 s 2162:1 E-8 s 2157:1 E-9 s 2020:Zginder 1433:lede.-- 1338:x,y,z,t 1133:time?-- 1040:BobMill 1035:BobMill 1006:Kybenal 927:grafare 821:or the 611:vertigo 580:vertigo 568:less so 526:vertigo 500:vertigo 345:science 281:Encarta 263:present 39:archive 3693:, and 3672:JimWae 3647:second 3630:Yamara 3621:Second 3538:oppose 3523:Yamara 3458:JimWae 3392:period 3351:second 3270:JimWae 3072:metres 3054:, and 3023:, and 2999:JimWae 2946:second 2944:, and 2809:, and 2795:second 2757:Oppose 2753:second 2730:second 2673:second 2665:second 2593:Oppose 2572:second 2560:second 2547:second 2497:second 2451:Second 2430:second 2320:second 2255:1 E9 s 2250:1 E8 s 2245:1 E7 s 2240:1 E6 s 2231:1 E5 s 2226:1 E4 s 2216:1 E2 s 2211:1 E1 s 2206:1 E0 s 2071:second 2052:JimWae 1899:JimWae 1866:JimWae 1862:WP:POV 1860:& 1825:JimWae 1783:JimWae 1743:JimWae 1739:JimWae 1728:JimWae 1697:JimWae 1672:JimWae 1639:JimWae 1628:JimWae 1618:JimWae 1607:JimWae 1435:JimWae 1324:SCZenz 1301:JimWae 1275:second 1253:asking 1199:JimWae 1150:JimWae 1120:Jiohdi 1053:JimWae 958:entity 699:Klimov 676:Jiohdi 635:Jiohdi 591:JimWae 564:useful 542:JimWae 468:Jiohdi 437:Jiohdi 427:JimWae 402:JimWae 391:JimWae 376:JimWae 267:future 265:, and 229:number 210:events 181:Jiohdi 172:Jiohdi 161:Jiohdi 3552:into 3542:WP:SS 3013:Agree 2714:lists 2687:, or 2683:, or 2675:into 2350:Help! 1991:time. 1858:WP:OR 1558:Notes 1508:WP:EL 538:start 369:lives 308:space 225:space 16:< 3767:help 3763:|ID= 3737:ISBN 3712:talk 3676:talk 3655:talk 3645:and 3643:time 3617:Time 3600:talk 3586:talk 3562:(𒁳) 3504:talk 3496:talk 3481:talk 3462:talk 3446:talk 3429:talk 3326:talk 3305:talk 3285:Time 3274:talk 3266:Time 3258:Time 3240:talk 3226:talk 3200:talk 3182:talk 3159:talk 3147:Time 3140:time 3101:talk 3080:talk 3033:talk 3003:talk 2986:talk 2964:talk 2942:time 2905:talk 2879:talk 2856:talk 2838:talk 2825:talk 2791:time 2777:talk 2742:talk 2728:and 2726:time 2698:and 2689:year 2685:week 2677:time 2669:time 2648:talk 2640:time 2619:Time 2605:talk 2597:time 2566:the 2558:and 2556:Time 2543:Time 2471:talk 2461:and 2426:Time 2418:Time 2366:Time 2338:hate 2079:WP:V 2075:time 2056:talk 1963:talk 1941:talk 1920:talk 1887:talk 1846:talk 1812:talk 1779:NPOV 1763:talk 1701:talk 1548:talk 1400:talk 1368:talk 1118:way. 1081:talk 1010:talk 993:See 685:DasV 672:DasV 556:true 351:and 259:past 251:The 243:and 237:time 227:and 198:time 98:Time 3619:or 3558:dab 3220:. 2995:Yes 2980:. 2966:) ( 2881:) ( 2813:. 2793:or 2765:are 2681:day 2473:) ( 2453:, 2344:Guy 1448:not 853:ITU 607:Ste 576:Ste 522:Ste 496:Ste 353:art 314:in 271:" 3758:: 3756:}} 3752:{{ 3735:. 3714:) 3689:, 3678:) 3657:) 3602:) 3588:) 3506:) 3483:) 3464:) 3456:-- 3448:) 3431:) 3394:, 3390:, 3382:, 3328:) 3320:-- 3307:) 3276:) 3242:) 3228:) 3202:) 3184:) 3161:) 3103:) 3082:) 3066:, 3062:, 3050:, 3035:) 3019:, 3005:) 2988:) 2970:) 2940:, 2907:) 2885:) 2858:) 2840:) 2827:• 2805:, 2779:) 2771:. 2755:? 2744:) 2650:) 2607:) 2507:, 2503:, 2477:) 2058:) 2050:-- 1965:) 1943:) 1922:) 1889:) 1848:) 1823:-- 1814:) 1765:) 1707:) 1703:• 1670:-- 1616:-- 1550:) 1467:1Z 1452:1Z 1299:-- 1173:1Z 1148:-- 1087:) 1083:• 1016:) 1012:• 970:) 932:) 825:? 771:| 447:is 374:-- 347:, 291:" 283:, 279:" 261:, 200:. 86:→ 3769:) 3748:. 3710:( 3674:( 3653:( 3598:( 3584:( 3510:) 3502:( 3494:( 3479:( 3460:( 3444:( 3427:( 3414:( 3339:. 3324:( 3303:( 3272:( 3238:( 3224:( 3198:( 3180:( 3157:( 3142:. 3099:( 3078:( 3031:( 3001:( 2984:( 2962:( 2903:( 2877:( 2854:( 2836:( 2823:( 2775:( 2740:( 2691:. 2654:) 2646:( 2603:( 2469:( 2352:) 2348:( 2054:( 1961:( 1939:( 1918:( 1885:( 1844:( 1810:( 1761:( 1699:( 1546:( 1398:( 1366:( 1260:☎ 1079:( 1020:. 1008:( 997:. 964:( 925:( 609:| 605:- 578:| 524:| 498:| 494:- 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index