Talk:Time discipline
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating. |
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Anthropology.
This project provides a central approach to Anthropology-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
I've added the above notice because the article purports to be global in scope but further on only talks about time in Western societies. — mark ✎ 13:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The base ten number system is a deliberate raping of children's minds.
- ' ' [Mathematics] is also the language of science--how deep we must go, how far back to reveal the "reason" for damaged life? The tangled skein of unnecessary suffering, the strands of domination, are unavoidably being unreeled, by the pressure of an unrelenting present. ' ' -- John Zerzan, in Number: Its Origin and Evolution GabrielAPetrie
- ' ' Concerning this "fiction" that upholds and accompanies all the forms of imprisonment, "the world is filled with propaganda alleging its existence," as Bernard Aaronson (1972) put it so well. "All awareness," wrote the poet Denise Levertov (1974), "is an awareness of time," showing just how deeply alienated we are in time. We have become regimented under its empire, as time and alienation continue to deepen their intrusion, their debasement of everyday life. "Does this mean," as David Carr (1988) asks, "that the 'struggle' of existence is to overcome time itself?" It may be that exactly this is the last enemy to be overcome. ' ' -- John Zerzan, in Time and its Discontents GabrielAPetrie
- The base ten number system is a deliberate raping of children's minds? Damned straight! I find myself struggling constantly against the vile scourge of creeping decimalism. Any system of units or measures based on ten and only ten is the spirit of Antichrist. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- I couldn't agree more! As the alarm clock and the "social currency" of a disrupted sleep cycle is the rape of the working populace!! Since when is punctuality an acceptable substitute for productivity? Bow down to the time god everyone, suck his shiny boots!
Contents |
[edit] GPS
I would like to see another paragraph added to address the distribution of electricity. The generation of electricity has to be synchronized to an even greater degree than raildorads and television, or the system doesn't work. There is also the use of a time component in navigation. The GPS system makes use of synchronized clocks, and transmits the time to GPS receivers so the position of the receiver can be accurately calculated. So the use of time governs our power and navigation. It might also be useful to point out that an ocean-going clock that did not rely on a pendulum was what first made it possible to acccurately measure longitude at sea. [Left by anon 216.52.22.7]
- Considering that the accurate measurement of longitude at sea predates written history, and by a very definite and wide time-margin the invention of WH Harrison's or any other mechanical clocks, I think your last statement might be false. GabrielAPetrie
- You're thinking of latitude. The fact that accurate measurement of longitude was solved by the invention of a clock is a fascinating story; see Longitude prize. —Sean κ. ⇔ 23:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- No, I am specifically talking about maps, some of them predating 1500(a.d.) and according to their authors were copied from maps of even older (and lost) sources -- some of which show coastlines that had not yet been explored or discovered -- and which are accurate longitudinally. Either the task of monks aboard ships chanting and counting knots was more accurate on some trips than everyone believes is humanly possible, or else history has lost to us some once-held knowledge of the accurate discernment of longitude. Which do you think is the case? GabrielAPetrie
- I would say that I find it hard to believe that ancient cultures had some "lost" knowledge. But if you have sources and provide them, then it'd be interesting to see these longitudinally accurate maps.
- Of course, creating maps of coastlines is bound to be easier due to the existence of landmarks---triangulation gives us a way to determine how far west we've gone. The hard problem is when you're at sea and have no landmarks except the stars and planets. Now, it is entirely possible that ancient civilizations had knowledge of astronomy that was lost, but I'll wait and see what the experts say on that. —Sean κ. ⇔ 16:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- There's a fairly standard narrative that claims that some maps from late antiquity were reasonably accurate. Having a good longitude check is one way to make a map more accurate the first time, but if old maps are constantly being revised, and checked even by sailors who have nothing but dead reckoning to go by, they will eventually improve. The claim is that these good maps based on navigation charts were discarded in favour of worse ones in reference books; one, on the authority of Ptolemy; two, on the desire of medieval churchmen to put Jerusalem in the centre of the world. -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- Umm... okay perhaps that's true. But can you tell me how longitude was measured then? Dead reckoning isn't going to help you one bit when you're 1000km out at sea. Did they just have superior astronomy? —Sean κ. ⇔ 18:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- Some people find coincidences in longitudinally exact distances between ancient megalithic monument sites around the world, and find connections between the placements of those temples and the drawing of constellations between stars. IF those coincidences occured on purpose, that would suggest that there was some system of determining exact longitudes (and not just coastline-to-coastline but actual location longitudinally around the globe), then that would suggest longitude was measured accurately. If not I nor anyone else can tell you, today, how it was they, back then, managed it, that doesn't mean they didn't manage it. It probably just means we must have gone through some kind of "dark age" or something where information was lost. Considering that some of these old maps featured land masses not currently visible due to their being underneath several miles of long-standing ice but currently detectable due to modern electronic surveying conveniences, I would say that the trend of losing knowledge may have been going on for quite some time. But depending on how you look at it, that is either seen as "quack" psuedoarchaeology or else "enlightened" supressed archeaology. One has an establishment behind it, and one doesn't; I guess it just matters how much of a scientist one is and whether or not one values the academic establishment as truly scientific. GabrielAPetrie 19:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- Umm... okay perhaps that's true. But can you tell me how longitude was measured then? Dead reckoning isn't going to help you one bit when you're 1000km out at sea. Did they just have superior astronomy? —Sean κ. ⇔ 18:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- There's a fairly standard narrative that claims that some maps from late antiquity were reasonably accurate. Having a good longitude check is one way to make a map more accurate the first time, but if old maps are constantly being revised, and checked even by sailors who have nothing but dead reckoning to go by, they will eventually improve. The claim is that these good maps based on navigation charts were discarded in favour of worse ones in reference books; one, on the authority of Ptolemy; two, on the desire of medieval churchmen to put Jerusalem in the centre of the world. -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- No, I am specifically talking about maps, some of them predating 1500(a.d.) and according to their authors were copied from maps of even older (and lost) sources -- some of which show coastlines that had not yet been explored or discovered -- and which are accurate longitudinally. Either the task of monks aboard ships chanting and counting knots was more accurate on some trips than everyone believes is humanly possible, or else history has lost to us some once-held knowledge of the accurate discernment of longitude. Which do you think is the case? GabrielAPetrie
- You're thinking of latitude. The fact that accurate measurement of longitude was solved by the invention of a clock is a fascinating story; see Longitude prize. —Sean κ. ⇔ 23:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
(restarting new series of colons) The superior ancient maps of which I am aware were maps of the Atlantic coastline and the Mediterranean basin. Not sure how long a "km" is, but I suspect that these maps were improved by sailors who never got quite that far out to sea. Smerdis of Tlön 14:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- But the issue this conversation is revolving around isn't measuring coastlines, but measuring longitude without a reference point, It might also be useful to point out that an ocean-going clock that did not rely on a pendulum was what first made it possible to acccurately measure longitude at sea. —Sean κ. ⇔ 15:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] base 10 number system
I imbrace the base 10 number system, and if it were up to me, would implement metric time. Why would base ten be any worse than any other system? In fact I would go a step further and give a circle (or globe) 1000 degrees instead of 360. It makes no sense not to fully use the base ten number system for everything. I think it's important for everyone to be able to understand things and making it easy for people to understand by utilizing the base 10 system seems to be a good way to start. Any scientist or engineer will tell you why they prefer metric measurement over another system, ease of use. And why shouldn't something so major as time measurement be included? Unless one wants to deceive another or twist facts to thier own advantage. We might as well make writing/language so complicated that only the upper-classes have the time and resources to learn and use it, therefore disempowering the common person.
-time, make it easier
- What if you found that the number system behind '360' and '12' and such was based on some ancient religious dogma? Would you be as enthusiastic to scrap it? GabrielAPetrie
[edit] Merge from Intellectual history of time
Somebody started the process last October but the tag here was removed by an IP editor (who also introduced several spelling errors, raising the question of vandalism). Given the article Intellectual history of time is largely made up of weasel-worded claims and a recap of Horology, it makes sense to merge the useful info into a more appropriate article. Pairadox 19:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 3600 seconds per hour
It occurs to me as I work on this that it was not until the pendulum clock that it was decided that there would be 3600 seconds to the hour. I imagine it was picked since
- it's a 'nice' mulitiple of 360 degrees to a circle (already established)
- the pendulum length was 'do-able'
I do not think that it was decided in advance that it must conform with Sumerian base 60 math - it just did since 360 was convenient (and has lots of factors)
Unless - someone can find where even a minute (no less a second) already had some precise meaning - even in navigation, seconds (& minutes maybe) were beyond measurement. Also some clocks had hours with 4 parts to the hour(quarter hours).
Must check on that Swiss, logarithm guy that put a minute hand on the Nuremberg eggs (clocks) for tycho Brahe --JimWae 08:30, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
Does this explain why the second hand is the THIRD hand? Were they called seconds before the second hand was added?
- With invention of the pendulum clock in 1656 by Christiaan Huygens, came isochronous time, which became based on a fixed unit interval of 3600 seconds per hour. By 1680, both a minute hand and then a second hand were added. Some of the first of these had a separate dial for the minute hand (turning counter-clockwise), and a second hand that took 5 minutes per cycle. Even as late as 1773, towns were content to order clocks without minute hands.[1] (http://www.electricscotland.com/history/dunfermline/chap8part10.htm)
Early Clock Face with separate minute dial - I'd like to add this jpg to article--JimWae 10:46, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
[edit] Old Top
this is a rough outline. please feel free to help fill it in. Kevin Baas -2003.03.17
---
That most recent addition looks suspiciously not NPOV, to my eye. Just doing all it can to cast doubt on historical knowledge. -- JohnOwens 22:01 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)
---
thank you all for contributing. i think, however, that the subject of "time travel" doesn't fit the topic close enough to deserve a body of text in here. remember that this is a history, and is not concerned with possibilities, but rather sensitizing people to how our ideas and perceptions have evolved thru the generations, so that we may better understand where we are now. It is a history of how we have felt time, the role it has played in our daily lives, and the role it has played in our sciences and therefore our beliefs. You are welcome to post a link to a page on time travel on this page, under the "See also" section, and perhaps in the future there will be a section of text where the link would be very appropriate. Let me say again, though, it is off topic. Please move or remove it.
Furthermore, on the further reading section, there's a book that's described as a fiction book, an 'amusing book'. It wasn't my intent when i made this page to be anything but respectably academic. But ofcourse, I didn't expect or intend to mantain control over this page, otherwise i wouldn't have published it here. I think the book should at least be clearly separated from the more technical and academic texts, and clearly identified as 'literature', or whatever is most appropriate. I hereby invoke a request for comment regarding this reference(rfc).
Kevin Baas 2003.03.26
If you ask me, this is probably the most relevant topic on time that there is, and it belongs in the main Time article. What would anyone say to a merge? Fishal 17:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Needs something, anyway. Charles Matthews 19:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Time discipline
Finding none here, I recently started an article on the sociological and anthropological concept of time discipline. There seems to be a fair amount of overlap between this article and that'n. Just wanted to raise the question; not sure that the two articles should merge, but they are similar. -- Smerdis of Tlön 00:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
