My Canoe Challenge

[JustMeSee]

Disclaimer: I admit that I don't really know how trees grow, but I have questions.

Are parts of the tree much younger than the rest of the plant?
That is, if there are new branches or the trunk increases in diameter over time, would the age of the parts range from zero to to one thousand year?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Disclaimer: I admit that I don't really know how trees grow, but I have questions.

Are parts of the tree much younger than the rest of the plant?
That is, if there are new branches or the trunk increases in diameter over time, would the age of the parts range from zero to to one thousand year?

True! If AV's arguement has any merit, then the very concept of "age" is utterly meaningless.

Fortunately it doesn't, so it's not.

 

[Nostromo]

Why are you ignoring my post AV?

I didn't start this thread so you skeptics can ask me a thousand questions.

Which word in the OP is hard to understand?

Apparently the difficult word is "old", hence this whole discussion.

Wouldn't you, if you cored it and found 1000 rings?

If you believe what you say, why do you insist on saying the tree is 1000 years old when its "physical age" must be significantly greater than that?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you believe what you say, why do you insist on saying the tree is 1000 years old when its "physical age" must be significantly greater than that?

The tree is 1000 years old, period.

1000 years ago, the tree was just a seed in the ground.

Take it from there.

(The OP shouldn't be that hard a question.)

 

[Nostromo]

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that the parts which make up the tree are much, much older?

 

[Nathan Poe]

The tree is 1000 years old, period.

1000 years ago, the tree was just a seed in the ground.

Take it from there.

(The OP shouldn't be that hard a question.)

The canoe is one day old, period.

One day ago, the canoe was a pile of lumber.

Take it from there.

(notice how quickly you abandon your own "physical vs. existnetial age" nonsense the moment it becomes inconvenient?)

 

[AV1611VET]

The canoe is one day old, period.

I agree.

One day ago, the canoe was a pile of lumber.

Or a tree.

(notice how quickly you abandon your own "physical vs. existnetial age" nonsense the moment it becomes inconvenient?)

No, I sure didn't.

The canoe is one day old, possessing the maturity of a 1000 year-old tree.

 

[Psudopod]

The canoe is one day old, possessing the maturity of a 1000 year-old tree.

So why doesn't the tree have the maturity of a 4.6 billion year earth?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I agree.

Or a tree.

No, I sure didn't.

The canoe is one day old, possessing the maturity of a 1000 year-old tree.

What is "maturity"?

Because the seed which became that tree was 2000 years old, having come off the tree before it.

Why doesn't the canoe therefore posess 2000 years of maturity?

 

[Lillen]

So you are all saying that time is not relative?

daylight can be longer then 12 hours. Here above the polarcircle the sun shines all day long in the summer. It is really beautiful. How do you messure the day here. People do have trubble getting sleep because of it?

 

[Freodin]

I agree.

Or a tree.

No, I sure didn't.

The canoe is one day old, possessing the maturity of a 1000 year-old tree.

Another simple question...

You say that the tree is 1000 years old.

Is that the physical or the existential age of the tree?

 

[Lillen]

So time is not relative. Time is statical?

 

[Freodin]

So time is not relative. Time is statical?

Time being relative has nothing to do with hours of daylight or personal feelings.

Time is measured by constant periodical processes. The swing of a pendulum, the passing of celestial objects, energetic vibrations of certain atoms... these kind of processes.

Yes, and these processes are "statical" if occuring in the same reference system.

 

[Lillen]

Time is measured by constant periodical processes. The swing of a pendulum, the passing of celestial objects, energetic vibrations of certain atoms... these kind of processes.

Yes, and these processes are "statical" if occuring in the same reference system.

So in the way we messure time, time is not relative?

 

[Freodin]

So in the way we messure time, time is not relative?

Yes, you could say that, within certain limits.

 

[Lillen]

So in your words we cannot varify that time is relative?

 

[Freodin]

So in other words we cannot varify that time is relative?

I sense a language problem again.

What do you mean when you say that "time is relative".

 

[Lillen]

The question was how can varify time being relative with statical clocks?

 

[Freodin]

The question was how can varify time being relative with statical clocks?

Yes, that is what I read... but I don´t understand your idea of "being relative" in this context.

What do you mean when you say "time is relative"? Relative to what?

 

[Lillen]

Such as a trees age relative to the canoe ages!