sci.physics.relativity

John Jones wrote:
> The last stronghold of the realist is time. Surely, no-one can deny
> succession, duration, before and after? These are things in
> themselves, despite our cognitions- they exist in spite of us. Yet
> time is easier to dispose of than space:
>
> That A comes before B is a statement made in respect of a third event
> C that is associated with either A or B. C could be the positions of
> hands on a clock, for example. Let us say that C (we can call it a
> clock event) is associated with B (as BC). We then say, after a rule,
> that if B is associated with C, then A comes 'first'. If we now ask
> whether C comes 'before' or 'after' B, then this is an invocation of
> D. If D is associated with C and not with B then, after a rule, we may
> say that C does (or does not) come 'after' B. The process can be
> carried out indefinitely.
>
>
> 'Before', 'after', 'simultaneity' and 'duration', and time itself,
> are
> traditional semantic ellipses employed in describing classes of
> association, where 'events' are atemporal, 'clock-events'. Our claimed
> familiarity with a concept 'time' is not with an incomprehensible
> transcendentally real species underpinning and distinguishing events,
> as it has been popularised by science.
>

Time is something the mathematicians dragged into physics because they
had no tools to describe 3 dimensions+motion.

It turns out that motion is modulated by inertia, and a clock is an
inertiameter. No 4th dimension needed. Absolute causality, no time
travel and paradoxes and no twin paradox.

Uwe Hayek.