“The Time is one dimensional quantity, it is used to determine the period or duration of the events and periods or duration of interval of periods or duration of events or between events”
NOTE: Time is the basic and different physical quantity which is not comparable with other physical quantity but it is used to determine the other physical quantity by which these quantity are defined Such as Velocity” distance covered in unit TIME”. It is just a relation between space and numeric to measure the rate of flow of any event and the interval between these events and their duration
image source: cdn.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/field_blog_entry_images/Time-1024×861.jpg
Raza536 (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
ADVERTISEMENTS:
There are considerable problems with your English syntax in the above, but besides that it says some of the same as the present 1st paragraph. It differs by 1> leaving out sequencing (before and after), which certainly involves time (I have already mentioned this before) 2> leaving out change & motion – also concepts which are temporal at a basic level 3>Durations are not just “determined”, they are sometimes simply compared – without assigning determined numbers (times) to them. (One event takes [an undetermined amount] more time than another) 4> it adds “one-dimensional quantity”. We have already discussed how “quantity” is somewhat inadequate, for quantities such as mass, space are not assigned positions on a scale. When we say event A will happen at 4:30, we are not assigning it quantitative value, we are putting that event in an ordered set of events – a sequence.
The usage of time for quantifying is already in the 1st paragraph, explicitly with respect to motion and change, and implicitly with respect to “comparing”. I have considered beginning with “Time is one dimension of a measuring system…”, but that makes the sentence more complicated to parse & makes discussion of the other dimensions of the measuring system (AND any other other components) more urgent, which would remove the focus from time. If others think that is a better 1st sentence, we can all discuss it more.
Besides not citing any sources, you have not shown how what you want to put in the article is any improvement to the article or to the 1st paragraph. You have not provided any reason to change the existing lede. –JimWae (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Whatever is done, it should be – and especially the lede and perhaps the opening paragraphs should be – in as clear English as it is possible to achieve without being greatly inaccurate. (This is a general encyclopedia, and time is a subject of subject of general interest. Some more esoteric subjects – let’s say Vanna Volga pricing for a random example – are mainly of interest to specialists and may be expected to jump into some fairly difficult terms and concepts right off. But time is not a subject like that). I’d be willing to offer some give in terms of absolute accuracy (probably not totally attainable anyway) in exchange for some in gain in comprehensibility, at least in the opening parts.
This got me wondering, what does Britannica say? Which is sometimes a useful question? It’s here, and it is pretty heavy stuff, but maybe there’s a bit or two that could demonstrate some useful ways of approaching the subject. Herostratus (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC) http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/596034/time has Britannica concise too.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Britannica differs from wikipedia in that it does not have a set guideline of always beginning with a sentence of definition. Often it gives a kind of dictionary definition in the form of an incomplete sentence, and then goes on from there – sometimes n ever giving a “final” or “conclusive” definition at all.
The Britannica article says “One of the features of time that puzzled the Platonist Augustine, in the 5th century ad, was the difficulty of defining it. In contemporary philosophy of language, however (influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein, a Cambridge philosopher), no mystery is seen in this task.
Learning to handle the word time involves a multiplicity of verbal skills, including the ability to handle such connected words as earlier, later, now, second, and hour. These verbal skills have to be picked up in very complex ways (partly by ostension), and it is not surprising that the meaning of the word time cannot be distilled into a neat verbal definition. (It is not, for example, an abbreviating word like bachelor.)” [emphasis mine, italics in original]The full EB article gets right into whether time flows or not, then into process philosophy (even after casting doubt on “flow”), then fatalism. It is a quite a long read before it deals with sequences (earlier, later) or gets back to “period” (durations & intervals) or deals with motion & change & temporal units (seconds)–JimWae (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)SimpleWiki covers much of the same ground as this article: “We use time to sequence events, to compare their durations and the intervals between them, and to quantify the speed at which objects move and things change” — but that has taken Wittgenstein to heart & abandoned “defining time”.–JimWae (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC) well there is no english language problem in my definition and as you said that the article support to define time in easier and basic way and my definition is much simpler
OBJECTIONS ON YOUR DEFINITION:-
ADVERTISEMENTS:
1> you wrote in your definition that we compare events then on what scale is used to compare event??? 2>to sequence events (before and after) well time starts with the starting point of universe and ends with the end point of universe that’s why we draw straight line with arrow there is nothing to before the universe as time started with bigbang 3) according to you time is a part of measuring system on what basis time is being measured? if time is a part of measuring system what is that system and then it has no link with other systems? 4>your definition provides no information about time machine! and it talks about only one frame of reference it doesn’t supports any external frame whereas my definition can talk on many frame of reference at a time Raza536 (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
1. One way we compare the duration of events is when 2 start at roughly the same time & one finishes much before the other. We do not need a scale to do that
2. We do not need to know anything about when time may have started or will end to sequence 2 events as one came before the other
3. I have recently outlined above – and moreso in the next section — several of the other components of the measuring system we use. The system is very much linked with other measurements
4. Time machines are not part of any reliably sourced definition of time–JimWae (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
1 Why should event start roughly at the same time? There should be a scale to in which these events which are compared should be measured 2)we certainly do need to know that” what was before time”? Or “when there was no time what was there” such question also need to be sequenced 3) ok systems might be linked with each other but what about the frame of reference? Your definition talks about only one frame of reference whereas according to theory relativity there are many frame of reference of time. 4)since time machine is linked with past and future and they act as a film strip there might be a possible way to approach into future and to go back into past??? so its also a part of time Raza536 (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
1. One way we compare the duration of events is when 2 events just happen to start at roughly the same time & one finishes much before the other. We do not need a scale to tell which one finished first or took less time, just as we do not need a scale to tell which of 2 pretty identical glasses has more water when one is full & the other only half full
2. If all we are interested in is how to sequence 2 events as “event A came before event B”, we do not need to know anything about when time may have begun (with the Big Bang) or may end. The “beginning and end of all time” may be important/interesting, but we do not need to know it in order to know, for example, which of my children were born first.
3. I have recently outlined above – and moreso in the next section — several of the other components of the measuring system we use. The system is very much linked with other measurements
4. Time machines are not part of any reliably sourced definition of time. There are not any time machines. It is very dubious there ever will be any way to “visit the past”. Time as a film strip is just one (somewhat presumptuous) way of thinking about time. Definitions of time cannot presume that time travel is a reality.–JimWae (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
CONCENTRATE ON TIME ONLY
1) let suppose two events start or begun at roughly the same time one is raining and other is thunderstorm and as coincidence both stops or end also at the same time now how could we compare both the events??? 2) we certainly do need to know the origin, nature and its reality you may do not need to know which of your children born first because you know which one was born first but you also want to know that which one is male and female same implies with time? What was there before time if time started with bigbang how? And why? 3) If system is are very much linked with each other then why there is change of time in one frame of reference and another time in other frame of reference??? 4) Car, aeroplane, rocket etc are all time machine in a sense they are time saving let suppose a person on foot takes 1hr to cover 1km by car it would take 5min only in this way he has saved his time 55min are extra for him as compare to the pedestrian. Another example could be of twin paradox that if person travels with speed of light he just lives 10min while other lives 100yrs why there is such great change of time??? There might be a possible gate to enter in future or past???(Apart from it’s not reality)Raza536 (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
1> We do not need to be able to compare ALL events to be able to compare (some) events. However, in the example you give, we could easily say they both lasted about the same length of time2> whether time begins with the Big Bang or not is an interesting question. That Q is dealt with later in the article, and there does not appear to be agreement on an answer. However, we do not need to know what the answer is to be able to say intelligible things about time in the lede – such as that events can be sequenced (such as which of 2 people were born first, or finished a race first) 3a> Having something be part of a system does not mean EVERYTHING is directly linked to it – nor that nothing can be distinct from it. 3b> People traveling in different reference frames may never agree on the simultaneity of events, but they can still agree that some events came before other events4> Time machines that can travel into the past do not exist. We do not need to discuss time dilation to say some intelligible things about time. Time dilation is covered later in the article. We began by discussing what to put in the introduction to the article. Not everything can be fully explained in the introduction – that is what the body of the article is for–JimWae (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
1)we certainly do need to for how long both of they lasted 2)nobody is interested in knowing which of his child was born first as everybody already know that who was born first 3)But it do mean that they are linked somehow? they do agree but time is all different for them 4)ok then leave this topic and than tell me what’s problem in my deinition as your definition talks on the intervel between events and their duration as events do not have any duration and stationary things also feel time???
By
SYED JUNAID RAZA
Email: junni35-at-yahoo.com