Jones Beene wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- > > >> From: Mauro Lacy >> > > >> Only velocity exists, physically. From then on, time is derived as t=v/s. >> That is, in physics time is no more than a mathematical construct. I meant: >> t=s/v >> > > > Which comes first - the chicken or the egg? > The problem of "which comes first" is even more difficult in the particular case of discussions about time, because the very notion of "first" involves the notion of time, i.e. it involves a temporal sequence. > Why not say that only time and space exist, physically, and that velocity is > derived therefrom ? > (In the following paragraph, when I say "exists", I mean "has intrinsic physical reality".) Simply because time does not exist, as a physical process. Let's suppose that space exists(this is debatable also, but I wouldn't go into that for the moment), and in that existing space nothing is moving at all, all is completely static. Does it have sense then to talk about time? So, time is a result or a consequence of movement; that is, of velocity. When I say velocity, I'm talking about rate of movement. By example, movement of discrete matter in empty space, which, as you can see, is something that has intrinsic physical reality. Imagine a discrete piece of matter moving through empty space. That discrete piece of matter physically does not need anything like time to move, it is enough for it to have movement(velocity) and empty space in which to move. Physically, time comes later, if you excuse the pun.
> After all, there are ways to measure time independently of velocity, but no > way to measure velocity independently of time. > Velocity does not need to be measured to exist. I'm talking about the intrinsic physical existence of movement, not about measurements. And what you say is anyways probably not true: you can measure velocity comparing it to other velocities, by example. Like in "those two velocities are equal", or "that velocity is 2 times that other velocity".
