Definition of Time?
Achim, My thoughts on time which I,m sure I read somewhere and I often considered as a reasonable sundial inscription is: "Without Time, everything would happen at once!" Thus the time keeps everything from happening at once. Bob Haselby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Definition of Time
Hello all: I've got a little simple question that I'm not quite sure how to answer. What would be the correct definition of the type of time shown by a sundial which is longitudinally corrected, but NOT corrected for The Equation Of Time? Thanks so much, John Carmichael http://www.azstarnet.com/~pappas p.s. Tony Moss said that he had a problem logging onto my website. Would any of you living in Great Britain mind checking to see if you too are having trouble?
Re: Definition of Time
John, I believe it would be Apparent Solar Time as kept on (made relative to) the local Standard Time Zone Meridian. -Luke John Carmichael wrote: > > Hello all: > > I've got a little simple question that I'm not quite sure how to answer. > > What would be the correct definition of the type of time shown by a sundial > which is longitudinally corrected, but NOT corrected for The Equation Of Time? > > Thanks so much, > > John Carmichael > http://www.azstarnet.com/~pappas > > p.s. Tony Moss said that he had a problem logging onto my website. Would any > of you living in Great Britain mind checking to see if you too are having > trouble?
RE: Definition of TIME
I always liked a "definition" of time - I'm afraid I forget whose - which doesn't seem to have been given here. It's something along the lines of "Time is the imperceptible, irresistible, and irreversible flow of the future through the present into the past" Regards Andrew James
Re: Definition of Time?
Bob, In the book "Tracce di Sole - Orologi Solari in Alto Adige" by Lucio Giudiceandrea and Rosina Ruatti, pag 191 Arunda (1989) is reported: "Il tempo è un trucco, con cui la natura evita che tutto succeda contemporaneamente" Graffito nel gabinetto dello Strictly Taboo Club a Dallas, Texas, firmato J.C. Translated into English: "Time is a trick. by which Nature avoids that all things happen contemporaneously" Graffiti in the toilette of the Strictly Taboo Club of Dallas, Texas, signed J.C. Ciao. Angelo At 09.56 15/10/98 -0700, Bob Haselby wrote: >Achim, My thoughts on time which I,m sure I read somewhere and I often >considered as a reasonable sundial inscription is: > "Without Time, everything would happen at once!" > >Thus the time keeps everything from happening at once. > >Bob Haselby [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- 44 32' 10''N11 32' 15''E ---
Re: Definition of Time?
"Paul Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > September 11-24 , 1752 > Unfortunately, Warren, even this depends where you were at that time! Had > you been in a place where the Gregorian Calendar had been accepted in 1582, > quite a lot might have happened. On the other hand had you been in Russia, > you would have to wait until 1917 to find the lost days!! I wonder something every time I hear about idiot savants who can tell the day of the week of any calendar date. Do they ever make the switch from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar? If so, when? I suspect the psychologists examining them don't know enough about the calendar to realize there is an issue. It's like claiming they can recognize any prime number instantly without asking, say, if the product of two particular ten digits primes is prime. Art Carlson
Re: Definition of Time?
Angelo, I know that I didn't originate this concept. I've often thought that maybe the Marx brothers had something to do with it. I still plan to put it on a sundial someday and hope it will stimulate some thought. Thanks to all in the sundial group for the interesting dialog. Bob Angelo Brazzi wrote: > > Bob, > > In the book "Tracce di Sole - Orologi Solari in Alto Adige" by Lucio > Giudiceandrea and Rosina Ruatti, pag 191 Arunda (1989) is reported: > > "Il tempo è un trucco, con cui la natura evita che tutto succeda > contemporaneamente" > Graffito nel gabinetto dello Strictly Taboo Club a Dallas, Texas, > firmato J.C. > > Translated into English: > > "Time is a trick. by which Nature avoids that all things happen > contemporaneously" > Graffiti in the toilette of the Strictly Taboo Club of Dallas, Texas, > signed J.C. > > Ciao. > Angelo > > At 09.56 15/10/98 -0700, Bob Haselby wrote: > >Achim, My thoughts on time which I,m sure I read somewhere and I often > >considered as a reasonable sundial inscription is: > > "Without Time, everything would happen at once!" > > > >Thus the time keeps everything from happening at once. > > > >Bob Haselby [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --- > 44 32' 10''N11 32' 15''E > ---
Re: Definition of Time?
If one is to delve into the question of "What is time?" it may be worth asking the companion question "What is space?" The theory of relativity tells there is a deep connection between the two. And the fact that the spatial question is asked less frequently may imply that it is an even subtler question. Bob Haselby wrote "Without Time, everything would happen at once!" Of course the word "once" depends on the meaning of the word "time." In similar fashion, one could say "Without Space, all things happen on top of each other!" And again the meaning of "on top of" depends on the meaning of space. Finally, if we follow relativity, the real question becomes "What is space-time?" Jim --- -- | Jim Cobb | 540 Arapeen Dr. #100 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Parametric| Salt Lake City, UT | (801)-588-4632 | | Technology Corp. | 84108-1202 | Fax (801)-588-4650 | --- -- I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know. -- Mark Twain
Re: Definition of Time?
Hello Art, They would be using the Gregorian Calendar exclusively I believe. Savants solving the weekday problem over a great span primarily make use the fact that a given weekday consistently repeats itself every 28yrs. Freq_1 (7days per weekday) * Freq_2 (4years per 1 day) = 28years per weekday. Of course the number of missed leap days in a given span must also be accounted for. Best Regards, Luke Arthur Carlson wrote: > > I wonder something every time I hear about idiot savants who can tell > the day of the week of any calendar date. Do they ever make the > switch from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar? If so, when? I > suspect the psychologists examining them don't know enough about the > calendar to realize there is an issue. It's like claiming they can > recognize any prime number instantly without asking, say, if the > product of two particular ten digits primes is prime. > > Art Carlson
Re: Definition of Time?
The definition of time is perhaps one of the more interesting conundrums, and one which has engaged me for some time. I find it difficult to come up with a self-originated one, but might recommend two books, which even I as a non-scientist read and enjoyed. One I have recently mentioned on the list, The Calander, by David Ewing Duncan, and the other is, A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawkings. They are very different kinds of book, but nonetheless address the question of "What is time?" Duncan looks at time in terms of the world and makind as a practical measure, while Hawking's is a much more scientific look at its meaning in the cosmos. Paul Murphy
Re: Definition of Time?
Unfortunately, Warren, even this depends where you were at that time! Had you been in a place where the Gregorian Calendar had been accepted in 1582, quite a lot might have happened. On the other hand had you been in Russia, you would have to wait until 1917 to find the lost days!! Paul -- > From: Warren Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Jack Aubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Bob Haselby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; sundial@rrz.uni-koeln.de > Subject: Re: Definition of Time? > Date: 16 October 1998 11:02 > > Dear All, > > If I wished to study history and pick a time when nothing happened, > what diates should I pick? (answer below) > > > > >Thus the time keeps everything from happening at once. > > September 11-24 , 1752 > Warren
Re: Definition of Time?
The philosopher, Bernard Lonergan, has a very astute observation to make about time. He distinguishes between the time that we measure (in minutes, years, etc.) and the time that we experience. Measured time belongs to the data of sense and serves to frame events for an analysis by the natural sciences. Experienced time belongs to the data of consciousness and serves to frame events for analysis by the human sciences. In this latter case, for example, the better historians aim to recreate the sense of things going forward as they were experienced, not as they may be measured. The same goes for the better psychologists -- they don't pay equal attention to every event in your life strung along a time line; they focus on meaningful time, valuable time. I'm relying here on Lonergan's Method in Theology, Chapter 8, "History." Bob Haselby wrote: Achim, My thoughts on time which I,m sure I read somewhere and I often considered as a reasonable sundial inscription is: "Without Time, everything would happen at once!" Thus the time keeps everything from happening at once. Bob Haselby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Definition of Time?
Dear All, If I wished to study history and pick a time when nothing happened, what diates should I pick? (answer below) > >Thus the time keeps everything from happening at once. September 11-24 , 1752 Warren
Re: Definition of Time
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, John Carmichael wrote: > Hello all: > > I've got a little simple question that I'm not quite sure how to answer. > > What would be the correct definition of the type of time shown by a sundial > which is longitudinally corrected, but NOT corrected for The Equation Of Time? > > Thanks so much, > > John Carmichael > http://www.azstarnet.com/~pappas Wouldn't that be "Local Apparent Time"? Dave
Re: Definition of Time
Hello all: Having been away for the week of (US) Labor Day, I return to a mailbox full of interesting items. Not being a sundial constructor, but having had interest in the math and such topics may I address this question? I suggest the phrase Zonal Apparent Time. My reasoning: The sun (ie, true sun; the thing up there; hence time on a sundial) identifies Local Apparent Time (referred to by some as Local True Time, since it is the true sun.) Correcting for longitude provides the Apparent Time at the Meridian of the time zone. That is what a sundial would read at that place. The EOT "changes" the Apparent Time defined by the True Sun to the Mean Time of the (fictitious ) mean sun. It is the mean sun which provides for 24 hours per day . The true sun is "off" this arbitrary standard by the amount of the EOT. Eg: I am at 118º W. My zone is defined as 8 hours slow on GMT hence by the Meridian at 120º W If my sundial reads noon, then it is 1200 hrs LAT; when it is noon at 120º W's dial , my dial reads 1152 hrs. Notice that NO clock will read these times unless the EOT is 0 for that day. Clocks refer to the fictitious Mean Sun. Hope that helps. I am using 19th Century simple definitions of course without reference to Ephemeris Time, UT, UT(0), UT(1) or Atomic Time. DAVE 33º 39' N 118º 05' W ..by my own sights and subject to change:) John Carmichael wrote: > Hello all: > > I've got a little simple question that I'm not quite sure how to answer. > > What would be the correct definition of the type of time shown by a sundial > which is longitudinally corrected, but NOT corrected for The Equation Of Time? > > Thanks so much, > > John Carmichael > http://www.azstarnet.com/~pappas > > p.s. Tony Moss said that he had a problem logging onto my website. Would any > of you living in Great Britain mind checking to see if you too are having > trouble?
Re: Definition of Time
John Carmichael wrote: > > Hello all: > > I've got a little simple question that I'm not quite sure how to answer. > > What would be the correct definition of the type of time shown by a sundial > which is longitudinally corrected, but NOT corrected for The Equation Of Time? > > Thanks so much, > > John Carmichael > http://www.azstarnet.com/~pappas > Hello John, You could use the definition : local suntime of the meridian .. degrees. ( or mention the name of a city on that meridian ) However, in my programs I use the definition : standard time. If the EoT is taken into into account you could use : standard time with EoT correction or clock time. or civil time. I am aware of the fact that more definitions are used all over the world. Happy dialling, Fer. -- Fer J. de Vries [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.iaehv.nl/users/ferdv/ lat. 51:30 Nlong. 5:30 E
R: Definition of Time
John Carmichael wrote: > What would be the correct definition of the type of time shown by a sundial > which is longitudinally corrected, but NOT corrected for The Equation Of Time? > Hallo John, In my programs I use the following definition : Local True Timethe timewithout any correction Time-zone True Time the timecorrected for the Longitude Local Mean Tine the time corrected for the Equation of time Time-zone Mean Time or Standard Time the time corrected for the Longitude and for the Equation of time Ciao Gianni -- Ing. Gianni Ferrari Via Valdrighi, 135 41100 - MODENA ( ITALY ) EMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
R: Definition of Time
John Carmichael wrote to Ciao (to Gianni Ferrari I think :-) ) : > Dear Ciao : > > Love your simple, to-the-point definitions. Does the word "True" in your > definitions mean "apparent" or "solar"? > > John Carmichael > --- >From what I have been able to find, the authors in USA use the expression "Apparent Time" to define the Sun's local hour angle . This definition for example you can find in the "Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac", in the volume of Mayall and in other texts on positional astronomy . The Italian and European astronomers on the contrary use, for defining the same angle, the expression "True Time" . This definition can be found , for ex., in the volumes of J. Meeus, of Rhor and in mine. The two expressions have therefore the same meaning. A regard Gianni P.S. My name is not, obviously, Ciao ( = hi ,hallo , bye ) but Gianni and the surname Ferrari :-) :-) --- Ing.Gianni Ferrari Via Valdrighi, 135 41100 - MODENA (ITALY) EMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.tripod.com/meridiane/index.htm ---
Re: Definition of Time
Hi David/Susan: By the fact that none of the experts on the list know of a traditional name to call this type of time, I guess everyone is free to use his own terminology. In all my sundial literature, I have been unable to find any reference to the name of this type of time. Your definition: "Zonal Apparent Time" is almost identical to the one preposed by Ciao Gianni who suggested the term: "Time-Zone True Time". I'd like to use your definition in my "Sundial Owner's Manual", if it's ok with you? Thanks for your detailed and thought out answer. John Carmichael http://www.azstarnet.con >Hello all: >Having been away for the week of (US) Labor Day, I return to a mailbox full of >interesting items. Not being a sundial constructor, but having had interest in the >math and such topics may I address this question? > >I suggest the phrase Zonal Apparent Time. >My reasoning: The sun (ie, true sun; the thing up there; hence time on a >sundial) identifies Local Apparent Time (referred to by some as Local True Time, >since it is the true sun.) Correcting for longitude provides the Apparent Time at >the Meridian of the time zone. That is what a sundial would read at that place. > >The EOT "changes" the Apparent Time defined by the True Sun to the Mean Time of >the (fictitious ) mean sun. It is the mean sun which provides for 24 hours per day >. The true sun is "off" this arbitrary standard by the amount of the EOT. > >Eg: I am at 118º W. My zone is defined as 8 hours slow on GMT hence by the >Meridian at 120º W >If my sundial reads noon, then it is 1200 hrs LAT; when it is noon at 120º W's >dial , my dial reads 1152 hrs. Notice that NO clock will read these times unless >the EOT is 0 for that day. Clocks refer to the fictitious Mean Sun. > >Hope that helps. I am using 19th Century simple definitions of course without >reference to Ephemeris Time, UT, UT(0), UT(1) or Atomic Time. > >DAVE >33º 39' N 118º 05' W ..by my own sights and subject to >change:) > >John Carmichael wrote: > >> Hello all: >> >> I've got a little simple question that I'm not quite sure how to answer. >> >> What would be the correct definition of the type of time shown by a sundial >> which is longitudinally corrected, but NOT corrected for The Equation Of Time? >> >> Thanks so much, >> >> John Carmichael >> http://www.azstarnet.com/~pappas >> >> p.s. Tony Moss said that he had a problem logging onto my website. Would any >> of you living in Great Britain mind checking to see if you too are having >> trouble? > >
