This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DVdm (talk | contribs) at 09:27, 25 April 2012 (→The intro: inappropriate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:27, 25 April 2012 by DVdm (talk | contribs) (→The intro: inappropriate)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Time article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Time is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former featured article candidate | |||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Time article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Please add all new material at the bottom of this page. New material placed at the top is likely to be ignored by regular readers because they look for the most current stuff at the bottom where it belongs.
Perception of time
The Time article shows a diagram representing 4-dimensional spacetime with the "present" in 3-dimensions. (For simplicity, this is shown as 3-dimensionsal spacetime with the "present" in 2-dimensions.)
- Another way of putting this could be to view us as 4-dimensional entities passing through a 3-dimensional universe at a particular rate ("the flow of time") in which light (i.e. our ability to perceive things) were located, and that these 3-dimensions could be distorted by high-mass objects (e.g. gravity's effect e.g. black holes). This particular rate ("the flow of time") through the 3-dimensional universe could be converted to movement within the 3-dimensional universe, until the speed of light is reached, at which point the rate (“the flow of time") drops to zero. Again, perhaps it's easier to show this as 3-dimensional entities passing through a 2-dimensional universe. This would be consistent with our perceived flow of time and the scientific views espoused within the article, and therefore not comprise new research. Would it be helpful to add this other way of putting things to the body of the article? Wyncandy (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Contributions to encyclopedia articles need to be verifiably from reliable sources. Blogs are for original research--JimWae (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Proper/coordinate time
Should their be some discussion of this distinction in the article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps not a discussion here, but at the end of the section time#Physical definition, immediately before the first subsection, a short by-the-way mention with wikilinks to the relevant articles Proper time and Coordinate time. - DVdm (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Should we start with the Philosophy?
I can't feel we should start with the philosophy first, you can't measure time unless you have worked out what it is, a header is not the same as a definition. Maybe time measurement should be a seperate article? 2.97.173.98 (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that would be a good idea. Both in science and in everyday life, scientists and John Doe have (unanimously) worked out that time can only usefully be defined as what is read on a clock (from wristwatch to cesium atom) — see also Time in physics. So time is essentially measurement bound. Putting philosophy first would give heavy undue weight to a (mutually disagreeing) body of practically useless and therefore much less relevant points of view. It's actually the philosophers who never managed to "work out what it is", so to speak. - DVdm (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- But time is relative to culture and environment, take the Mayans who look at time as a never ending cycle of segments determined on Solar and Lunar calendars. This was the standard way of looking at things throughout pre-history. We retain this structure even now only we say a solar year as a standard unit of measuring time. Despite the "fact;" We reset it each January! 150.182.210.231 (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, the Sun and the Moon can be (and are) used as clocks, so they can be used to define time. Look at our units like days, months and years (and their many flavours). These useful clocks/units, together with, for instance, heart beats, fit nicely in the aforementioned list of clocks (from wristwatch to cesium atom). That probably explains why the article starts with the history section. - DVdm (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- But time is relative to culture and environment, take the Mayans who look at time as a never ending cycle of segments determined on Solar and Lunar calendars. This was the standard way of looking at things throughout pre-history. We retain this structure even now only we say a solar year as a standard unit of measuring time. Despite the "fact;" We reset it each January! 150.182.210.231 (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Please remove some external links
Please remove some external links from external links section. The amount of links we have in that section currently, we can easily create another article on it. I thought of editing myself, but, since I am not a regular editor of the article (don't know about previous consensus -if there was any on this) I am requesting it here. I have noticed there are some books too in external links section. Can we include those in further reading section? Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 16:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The intro
I think the intro is erroneous. The intro starts with:
- Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them
This is kind of a reification. The measuring systems are mental constructs in order to quantify some fundamental aspect of the reality. Confusions between reality and mental constructs abstracting them are classical reifications. Time is, according to my opinion,
- a 4D space-time vector chosen to be parallel with the local vector of increased entropy,
but in order to be somewhat comprehensible to anyone, one could instead say:
- time is a quality of our existence that defines increased decay and other processes described as "aging"
or some such. Rursus dixit. (bork!) 19:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Saying something is a component of our measuring system does not reify it. One might think so, though, if one supposed that every component of OUR measuring system (and/or the measuring system itself) were a thing. There is an ongoing debate about whether time can be considered an entity, and the lede draws attention to that. Whether time is real depends a lot on what one thinks "real" means (aren't concepts real?). Time cannot be easily defined, but what is given in the 1st paragraph is well sourced, and attempts to do no more than describe how we use the concept. What sources are there that define time as you propose? Can we assume this is not another attempt to have the first link go to Quality (philosophy)? The lede does not state that time has any "reality" beyond the way we construe it. --JimWae (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, Rursus, I agree with your criticism, and have made that exact criticism here before. The problem here is JimWae exercises a kind of ownership of this article, and his views come from an obscure philosophical perspective that views time as some kind of illusion. He does not agree that time is a real phenomenon. Note he and I have some history: Over a year ago I successfully lobbied over a month to have the lede sentence be framed in more general terms along the lines of:
- Time is the physical phenomenon of intrinsic change that permeates all of nature/universe...
- I sourced it to a dictionary definition, although most other dictionaries use vague language. I managed to fight JimWae off and got support for this general kind of introduction as above. The article stood that way for some months until I came before the Arbitration Committee and was banned from editing for a year for an unrelated dispute. With me gone, JimWae took the opportunity to restore his version of the lede, with its "measuring systems" and "what a clock reads" and all this nonsense. Time is something far greater than what one may gather from what JimWae writes. You can read our discussions from 2010 in the archives if you like. (archive link -Stevertigo (t | c) 09:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, Rursus, I agree with your criticism, and have made that exact criticism here before. The problem here is JimWae exercises a kind of ownership of this article, and his views come from an obscure philosophical perspective that views time as some kind of illusion. He does not agree that time is a real phenomenon. Note he and I have some history: Over a year ago I successfully lobbied over a month to have the lede sentence be framed in more general terms along the lines of:
- I agree with the current content of the lead. It is well sourced and it has been pretty stable over a long period of time and under a ton of contributors. The article has 440 watchers. I find phrases like "JimWae exercises a kind of ownership of this article", "obscure philosophical perspective ", "fight JimWae off ", "JimWae took the opportunity to restore his version ", "all this nonsense", are highly inappropriate. Be careful. - DVdm (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Time articles
- Top-importance Time articles
- C-Class physics articles
- Top-importance physics articles
- C-Class physics articles of Top-importance
- C-Class Astronomy articles
- Top-importance Astronomy articles
- C-Class Astronomy articles of Top-importance
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class metaphysics articles
- High-importance metaphysics articles
- Metaphysics task force articles
- C-Class philosophy of science articles
- High-importance philosophy of science articles
- Philosophy of science task force articles
- C-Class mathematics articles
- Top-priority mathematics articles
- C-Class psychology articles
- Top-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles