Another perspective of time..

A few months ago I did try to define how time is seen. Below is something that I came upon which is very interesting... While trying to look for a formal definition of time, it is nearly impossible to find one. All we see are examples. I feel a little more needs to be said about time than just that.It appears to me that when we measure time all we are doing is comparing the progress of one motion with another reference motion (or identical copies of it). We usually pick a periodic motion, of some sort, for the reference motion because it automatically sets up its own units for counting, but I think most of us tend to forget what it is we are counting, namely the total number of units of periodic motion the periodic motioner is doing compared to the other motion (activity) we are evaluating. I feel this forgetfulness tends to give time the apparent abstract character of an independent existence which would remain in space after all matter were, somehow, removed.Also, some people postulate the possibility of traveling in time (not just figuratively). We can initiate travel in space, but since time is, apparently, just measured amounts of motion, and motion maintains itself (does its own thing), it seems to me that all we can do aboutmotion (time) is just stand by and watch, and also try to redirect some of this self asserting motion towards our own beneficial uses.Having described what I think time is I would like to mention a couple of complications we run into when logging the times of events. First of all, if observers are scattered around at many different locations they will record different views of the environment for any given point in their common time. If they are far enough apart for the delay in the arrival of light to be significant in there counting of time they will also record slightly different starting times for any events in their ranges of view.What about the effect of the propagation delay of light on the appearance of any simultaneity of events? It is obvious that all observers anywhere on a line equidistant from two events will all agree about the apparent relative simultaneity of those two events.On the other hand, all those observers who are not on a line equidistant from the two considered events will disagree with all those observers who are on the equidistant line, about any appearance of simultaneity. The same goes for any observers who move off the equidistant line during the time of light travel from the two events. (This latter theoretical situation has been erroneously used by some authors as a basis to claim that a different time frame necessarily exists for moving observers, or bodies. A different time frame does necessarily exist for moving bodies, but not because of any altered evaluation of simultaneity, because this also can happen with non moving bodies. Rather is the fact of a different time frame for moving bodies on account of some basic dynamics of physics uncovered by Maxwell and Lorentz, and verified by others.) All the above observers can, of course, reconcile their disagreements by calculating out the delays in the arrival time of light to their locations from the particular events, and arrive at a common "real time" log of the events, providing nobody is moving fast enough to cause the Special Theory of Relativity to become a significant factor. If the Special Theory of relativity becomes a factor then alternate time (rate) frames are set up which can also be calculated out using the Lorentz Transformation, but it is currently considered to be against the rules to call either one of the time frames the only real one. They are both said to be real. However, since most of the matter in the universe, at least "close by", is in the same time frame, I see no reason why we couldn't refer to a "Common Relative Time" and an "Extrinsic Relative Time", the latter phrase being applicable to more than one possible time frame of course. In this way fictitious (or real) super speed space travelers could behooked into a common time system, by using the Lorentz transformation, and agreeing to accept "Common Relative Time" as the basic reference time. That's all the head scratching regarding a description of time I can do right now, but I feel this description is more adequate than I have been able to find in the literature on the subject.

Relative positioning...

It has been a long time since, I sat down and did some serious blogging. The fact is that I have been moving around Europe. Now I need to read my own blog to remember where I last left. In the last few weeks I was inspired to write something. Something very different and not on physics. Take a look at the page. It is just plain silly stupid stuff. It is supposed to be funny. Please visit that site and leave a comment. Would appreciate that. http://swedishstories.blogspot.com/ In the coming days I will get my gray matter back in some order. For all of you who have viewed my blog, thank...keep visiting... PS: By the way, I am in The Netherlands now. It is a wonderful place.