# Imagination.

Did anyone but you mention width or height of time in this post?
No. Nobody did. Y'know why? Because width or height of time is as silly as length of time.
So tell me where it says that "length" is exclusively associated with measurement of spatial dimension and not with the measurement of a temporal duration?
As I have said, "length of time" is a colloquial expression. You go ahead and show where it is used in a scientific context.
You're too deep in the physics box my friend. It helps to peek over the edge once in awhile.
As I have said often enough before, you shouldn't be thinking outside the box until you understand the box. And you certainly shouldn't be arguing against the box.

So, do you still want to use the term "magnitude" rather than "length" in relation to the measurement of duration ?
Magnitude applies to all quantities. It is the size of the quantity.

Oh
Magnitude applies to all quantities. It is the size of the quantity.
Show me a "quantity of time".
Here is one I found;
Quantity time refers to the amount of time a parent is physically present with their child. But what constitutes being physically present?
Quantity Time
Quantity time refers to the amount of time a parent is physically present with their child. But what constitutes being physically present? Think of the following situations: is it quantity time when a parent watches Oprah and Dr. Phil while their child plays on the carpet beside them? Is it quantity time when I’m playing soccer with my boys . . . but my mind is far away thinking of writing parent articles? I’m physically there, but in a sense I’m not there.
Quality Time
Quality time refers to the standard or calibre of the time we spend with our kids. It means we are focused, intentional, and engaged with our child. Our attention is directed at our child and what they are doing. It makes sense then that one hour of quality time is better for a child than four hours of watching Oprah quantity time. But there is more to this issue than what I have discussed so far.
https://www.parentspartner.com/quality-time/

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you are arguing against the dictionary, whereas you seem to be using Asexperia's "Philochrony" and his use of "magnitive" measurements.

Yet a quote from Asexperia: "But, all beings and all phenomena have a duration. Time is the measurement of duration." And illustrates it with this posit:
Timeline ---- s --------> e ----------> phenomena ...... interval (duration)

I responded to that illustration with this, which is self-explanatory.

Magnitude is associated with measurement of 3 dimensional volumes of various sorts, such as "worldvolume", that consists of stacked branes (2 D planes)

A "worldsheet" is a 2 dimensional measurement, associated with the duration of stacked 1 dimensional timelines (strings).

A "worldline" is a 1 dimensional measurement, associated with the chronological duration of the uni-directional timeline of an individual object (particles) or single events (singularities).

May I remind you that the "arrow of time" is a unidirectional measurement and is measured in chronologies (lengths) of simple arbitrary increments such as "seconds", or "minutes".

I have never heard anyone refer to a magnitude of time. Can you provide an example?

It is only when we measure extremely large numbers we revert to magnitive term such as "eons", "epochs"

I have never seen the term "magnitude" used in reference to measuring the duration of a chronology. Can you offer an example?

Last edited:
I'm arguing against your misuse of the dictionary.
Where is the misuse of the dictionary by quoting it?
duration
Duration is how long something lasts, from beginning to end. A duration might be long, such as the duration of a lecture series, or short, as the duration of a party. The noun duration has come to mean the length of time one thing takes to be completed.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/duration#

Magnitude of Time,
An order of magnitude of time is usually a decimal prefix or decimal order-of-magnitude quantity together with a base unit of time, like a microsecond or a million years. In some cases, the order of magnitude may be implied (usually 1), like a "second" or "year". In other cases, the quantity name implies the base unit, like "century". In most cases, the base unit is seconds or years.
Prefixes are not usually used with a base unit of years. Therefore, it is said "a million years" instead of "a mega year". Clock time and calendar time have duodecimal or sexagesimal orders of magnitude rather than decimal, e.g., a year is 12 months, and a minute is 60 seconds.
The smallest meaningful increment of time is the Planck time―the time light takes to traverse the Planck distance, many decimal orders of magnitude smaller than a second.[1]
The largest realized amount of time, based on known scientific data, is the age of the universe, about 13.8 billion years—the time since the Big Bang as measured in the cosmic microwave background rest frame.[2] Those amounts of time together span 60 decimal orders of magnitude. Metric prefixes are defined spanning 10−24 to 1024, 48 decimal orders of magnitude which may be used in conjunction with the metric base unit of second.,,,more
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(time)

Last edited:
Where is the misuse of the dictionary by quoting it?
By leaving out the parts that don't agree with you.

I'll repeat it again: You are using a colloquial definition, not a scientific one.

I'll repeat it again: You are using a colloquial definition, not a scientific one.
Colloquial? You've got to be kidding.

I listed the scientific description above and I dare you to use that in a single reference to a measurement of the magnitude of "duration of time".

That above sentence took me a single magnitude of 60 seconds to write. Very scientific?

If I wrote something like that, I'd be accused not understanding the big fancy terminology used on that occasion.
Give me a break!

I'll repeat it again: You are using a colloquial definition, not a scientific one.
And exactly what does that mean? That time does not exist unless it is properly addressed in scientific terms?

Oh the confusion it causes when not using the term "magnitude" to indicate a "length of time".
This I expect from exchemist. He is the science censor.

I expected a little more imaginative latitude from you, to use a scientific term in a colloquial manner.

Has latitude meaning?
Latitude is related to the Latin word latitudo, meaning "breadth, width, extent, size." You might already know that latitude is used to indicate the distance an object is from the equator, measured from north to south.
Latitude can also be used to mean "be given the space to act and decide for oneself," like the latitude parents might give responsible kids.
Use the word latitude to describe how much freedom you have in making choices. For example, if a teacher gives you latitude in writing your paper, you might get to choose the topic and how many sources to include.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/latitude

Colloquial? You've got to be kidding.
So, another word that you don't understand.
I listed the scientific description above...
And now you're confusing "description" with "definition".
I dare you to use that in a single reference to a measurement of the magnitude of "duration of time".
As I said, Google it. Orders of Magnitude (time). How can there be orders of magnitude if there is no magnitude?

I expected a little more imaginative latitude from you...
On the contrary, I'm a stickler when it comes to terminology. I don't like people using the word "massive" to describe things that have no mass - e.g. holes. I don't like people using the word "absolutely" when they mean "yes".
"Would you like some coffee?"
"Absolutely!"
*pours it over his head* "Or would you like to qualify your answer? In a cup, perhaps?"​

If you don't understand English well, that's fine - but don't pretend that you understand it better than everybody else.

No. Nobody did. Y'know why? Because width or height of time is as silly as length of time.

As I have said, "length of time" is a colloquial expression. You go ahead and show where it is used in a scientific context.

As I have said often enough before, you shouldn't be thinking outside the box until you understand the box. And you certainly shouldn't be arguing against the box.
This is all classic Write4U method.

He switches between technical and colloquial meanings of terms all the time and by doing so makes science into gibberish. Just cast your mind back to the utterable twaddle he has produced by doing this with the terms "potential" and "function".

On the contrary, I'm a stickler when it comes to terminology. I don't like people using the word "massive" to describe things that have no mass - e.g. holes. I don't like people using the word "absolutely" when they mean "yes".
"Would you like some coffee?"
"Absolutely!"
*pours it over his head* "Or would you like to qualify your answer? In a cup, perhaps?"​
(note my clever use of indent)

What on earth are you talking about? I am a stickler about truth and I never said any of the examples you cited above, but thanks for the info!

It seems you are just spoiling for a fight? Note my use of colloquialism. Actually, that is more of an idiom, but I'm sure you'll understand.
If you don't understand English well, that's fine - but don't pretend that you understand it better than everybody else.
Again where have I said that I understand English better than everybody else?
That is a totally duplicitous statement. I don't pretend anything, it is you who is actually stating that you know better than everybody.
"I'm a stickler when it comes to terminology"
You do know that the term "stickler " is a colloquialism?

I posted the definition of both terms, because I do indeed understand English.

But I challenge you to present an official declaration that the phrase "length of time" is a colloquialism.
If you cannot prove your assertion, I shall consider your accusation as baseless and ill considered.

If you understand colloquialisms, what then is your problem with understanding the content? But the phrase "length of time" is not a colloquialism, it is accepted speech.

The problem here is not my use of the English language. The problem is your refusal to examine and discuss the issue. But it seems this thread has become lost in a magnitude of semantic interpretations of imaginary statements I never made.

You accuse me of refusing to use the correct language. OK, I accuse you of refusing to examine the subject manner in an imaginative manner. You haven't told me that I am wrong in content, only in my presentation. Do you see the difference?

If you do not understand the precise meaning of what I am saying ask for clarification. Don't tell me how to present my thoughts. They are clear and pertinent to the subject under discussion.

Moreover it completely sidetracked a very interesting topic with utterly useless verbage. Let it go, ok?

Last edited:
Duration is how long something lasts, from beginning to end. A duration might be long, such as the duration of a lecture series, or short, as the duration of a party. The noun duration has come to mean the length of time one thing takes to be completed.

But I disagree

Duration isn't about time . Duration is about the movement(s) of things because of themselves . Regardless of whether these objects are measured in any form at all . Inotherwords objects have duration because of themselves . Hence objects cause Movement which causes duration .

Last edited:
But I disagree
Duration isn't about time . Duration is about the movement(s) of things because of themselves . Regardless of whether these objects are measured in any form at all . In other words objects have duration because of themselves . Hence objects cause Movement which causes duration .
Existence itself causes duration.
But I have said all I have to say on the subject of time, which not the subject of the thread topic.

river said:
But I disagree
Duration isn't about time . Duration is about the movement(s) of things because of themselves . Regardless of whether these objects are measured in any form at all . In other words objects have duration because of themselves . Hence objects cause Movement which causes duration .

Existence itself causes duration.
But I have said all I have to say on the subject of time, which not the subject of the thread topic.

Highlighted

Agreed .

Imagination . Memory , Understanding then Knowledge and then creativity .

Imagination . Memory , Understanding then Knowledge and then creativity .
Early hominids imagining that thunder and lightning is caused by an unseen powerful being in the sky. This false memory being passed on through the ages, leading to an imagined understanding of a God, and the recording of "testaments" about the existence of Gods.

Religions are grand works of human imagination.

Early hominids imagining that thunder and lightning is caused by an unseen powerful being in the sky. This false memory being passed on through the ages, leading to an imagined understanding of a God, and the recording of "testaments" about the existence of Gods.

Religions are grand works of human imagination.
The most ancient beliefs had the existence of a god as a concept, intellectual concept. No temples, no priests, just "knowing" there was a god.

From god as a concept, the followed generations passed thru several catstrophes which incited them to relate those as acts of gods.

It is understood that the ancient concept of god was replaced by images representing the forces which caused such terrible events.

Religion was more established when laws or doctrines appeared in relation to those gods, represented with images.

When we look at the religion found in the bible, imagination is not the main rule and purpose but totally the contrary, it calls for a new beginning having the same planet earth but transformed, the same humans but also transformed, in a transformed as well universe. This book doesn't imply a new living in a spiritual world but in a real physical world.

Science started with acquiring knowledge based in our physical world. Imaginations appeared to invent new things in our physical world. But, it came an era where the imagination found in new theories didn't fit with our physical world.

Then, the solution was to say that our physical world is also imagination, and by such, the imaginations found in those theories will now fit greatly.

We witness that religion (the Bible) maintains and respects the meaning of what is a physically real universe, while science is every day going more and more away from physical reality to preaching the imagination that everything around us is... imagination.

We are born in a physically real universe, and our agreements or disagreements of how we perceive the universe won't change the fact that we didn't born in an imaginary universe.

Imagination is more important than knowledge in children's world. In science knowledge is more important than imagination.

The most ancient beliefs had the existence of a god as a concept, intellectual concept. No temples, no priests, just "knowing" there was a god.
Wrong.

There are movies showing chimpanzees defending their troupe against that unseen enemy in the sky who makes loud noises and throws water and fire at them. And perform dances by waterfalls as that is the unseen mountain spirit offering fresh water for them. The common ancestor of all great apes must have had these experiences with that unseen being in the sky or in the mountain or in the lake or in the ocean.

Most early gods were based on unexplainable natural phenomena. The Devil and Hell is almost certainly based on the fire gods dwelling in volcanoes.

It is clear that today's Chimpanzees, who have not evolved intellectually as much as humans nevertheless have imagination. This of course is based on the fundamental fight or flight instinct.

The sophistry came much later, when some clever "holy men" discovered that they could gain power in the tribe when they began to "communicate" with the gods and could request favors by offerings to please the gods.

There is no magic other than in the unexplained and unexplainable. Knowledge comes from discovering the cause of unexplained phenomena.

Last edited:
... it is you who is actually stating that you know better than everybody.
On the contrary, every time I post I expect to be corrected by the smart people. It isn't the smart people who are disagreeing with me; it's only you.
You do know that the term "stickler " is a colloquialism?
Indeed I do. I use colloquialisms all the time, when it is appropriate. And I don't pretend that a colloquialism is "the correct definition" of a word, like you do.
No. I will continue to point out when you are wrong.
But I challenge you to present an official declaration that the phrase "length of time" is a colloquialism.
As I have already said, the ideas of "width of time" and "height of time" indicate that "length of time" is a colloquialism. The three spatial dimensions are indistinguishable.
If you cannot prove your assertion, I shall consider your accusation as baseless and ill considered.
I couldn't care less what you consider. I'm pointing out to the other readers where you are wrong. If they want to chime in on your side, they're perfectly welcome.
But the phrase "length of time" is not a colloquialism, it is accepted speech.
All colloquialisms are accepted speech. Being accepted doesn't make them good science.
The problem is your refusal to examine and discuss the issue.
Allow me to recap:
1. In post #4, river said: " Imagination is more important than knowledge " a famous quote .
2. In post #21, I responded: We need to imagine possible explanations for what we see - but it's equally important to test our imaginings against reality.
3. In post #34, I continued: There's nothing we can't test.
4. In post #35, YOU responded: The test of time?.....
5. In post #36, I replied: The test of time IS a test.
6. In post #37, YOU responded: It is impossible to measure time with time.
And on down the rabbit hole.

The issue, as far as I'm concerned, is that imagination needs to be tested against reality. You're the one who diverted it with your nonsense.
If you do not understand the precise meaning of what I am saying ask for clarification.
There is nothing precise about what you say. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Colloquialisms are not precise.