# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: What is the rate of future time?  (Read 5095 times)

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3162
• Thanked: 45 times
##### What is the rate of future time?
« on: 23/01/2016 20:17:10 »
as title.

0...................................................0

what is the rate of time between point A and point B or 0 and 0?

A rate of speed or a rate of distance or a rate of speed over distance can not be possibly a rate of future time.
« Last Edit: 23/01/2016 20:52:52 by Thebox »

#### Space Flow

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 400
• Thanked: 31 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #1 on: 23/01/2016 23:10:53 »
There is no answer to your question as you have not given all the relative parameters.
What is the rate of any time past, present, or future, depends on who's reference frame you are measuring it from, and the relative speeds and relative direction of travel.
There is no Universal clock that has a Universal time.
Time is relative, not a constant.
Let go of your Newtonian view of reality. We have moved past that.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3162
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #2 on: 24/01/2016 06:36:22 »
There is no answer to your question as you have not given all the relative parameters.
What is the rate of any time past, present, or future, depends on who's reference frame you are measuring it from, and the relative speeds and relative direction of travel.
There is no Universal clock that has a Universal time.
Time is relative, not a constant.
Let go of your Newtonian view of reality. We have moved past that.

A shadow on a sundial has a rate

A clock has a rate

A Caesium atom has a rate

Light has a rate

So you must be able to answer my seemingly simple question, I have not asked you the rate of light, I have not asked you the rate of a clock, I have not asked you the rate of a Caesium atom or did I ask the rate of a shadow, because all these rates are relative to motion over a distance, an increment of history, a based origin on the Earth's rate of spin relative to the Sun.

I asked what is the rate of time in the space between point A and point B?

Surely you are not going to suggest that the rate of time of space is the same as the rate of any of the mentioned?

Science explains light takes 1 second to travel 299 792 458m  through space-time, so what is the rate of space-time?   I do not see any measurement of time, I see measurement of relative velocity over a distance.

« Last Edit: 24/01/2016 06:51:46 by Thebox »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4719
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #3 on: 24/01/2016 08:04:32 »
Rate is defined as change per unit time. Hence speed is the rate of change of position per unit time, flux is the number of photons crossing a unit area per unit time, etc.

The conventional unit of time is the second, so the rate of time is one second per second, i.e. 1.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3162
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #4 on: 24/01/2016 11:11:43 »
Rate is defined as change per unit time. Hence speed is the rate of change of position per unit time, flux is the number of photons crossing a unit area per unit time, etc.

The conventional unit of time is the second, so the rate of time is one second per second, i.e. 1.

I am sorry Alan but at this moment from what you said, I am now confused.  You define rate is a change per unit of time, yet time is defined by a rate,
so what exactly are you saying one second per second suppose to represent?

What are you saying a second is?

I do not understand,

if you was to measure anything you would start at 0 would you not?

So 0 to 1 second would have a distance would it not?

So how long  of a distance is a 1 second distance?

For example lets us say we have a wave-length, in 1 second of distance there was ten cycles per second

in a second situation we had a 1 second of distance and the wave produced only 5 cycles per second of length

So how can the cycle difference ever possibly change the 1 second equal length?

I.e c running parallel to c ,299792458 m  equal lengths

Now in one of the lengths we put a medium

Can you please explain the difference in wave lengths when the the two distances are equal?

d=.....................................................1s

d=.....................................................1s

Why does it matter how many cycles there are between A and B?

« Last Edit: 24/01/2016 11:21:45 by Thebox »

#### Space Flow

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 400
• Thanked: 31 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #5 on: 24/01/2016 11:44:56 »
OK.. I don't know why but I'll give it one more go.
Seeing as you are not making it relative to anything than it can only mean that it is relative to yourself. Time for you will never change it's rate. You will age at the same rate until the day you die. That is irrelevant of your perceived speed, or the fact that you live in a Gravity well. In fact it makes no difference even if you went to space or even if you started accelerating towards the speed of light.
Time for you will always run at the same rate whatever system you want to measure it by. It has for all your past, it is now, and it is not going to change in your future.
You can not make your own time do anything other than run at the same rate.
« Last Edit: 24/01/2016 11:47:50 by Space Flow »

#### puppypower

• Hero Member
• Posts: 556
• Thanked: 43 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #6 on: 24/01/2016 13:11:06 »
Time always moves to the future. It does not stop nor does time moves in cycles. I can't go back to my youth nor does time cycle back to yesterday or last year. Although everyone is familiar with the flow of time, we nevertheless measure time using cyclic expressions that repeats itself; clocks and cesium atoms. What exactly are we measuring?

This is sort of like measuring light with a scale. This measurement may have value, but a scale is designed for the property of weight and does not properly reflect the nature of light, even of this give some form of measurement. This disconnect can lead to conceptual problems, due to the misrepresentation. If we measure temperature with a hydrometer, it can be done, but it makes the mind add extra properties to time to make the translation.

Time flows in a way that is much more similar to the concept of entropy. Both time and entropy increase, as both move to the future. Both time and entropy express changes of state which gain increasing complexity and change. Therefore an entropy clock would much better parallel the nature of time, so there is less conceptual confusion or need for translation. There are no hidden wires for conceptual confusion.

An example of an entropy clock, is what I will call the fish clock. With the fish clock, we take a fresh fish of standard weight and thickness and let it sit at room temperature. Our increment of time will be based on when you can smell the fish at 10 meters. Decay works under the principle of entropy, and like time, both decay and time will move to the future and will not reverse or cycle. We can't un-stink the fish. We are not misrepresenting time with a hidden wire.

That being said, if the universe was expanding relative to universal space-time, that means that all the entropy or fish clocks of the universe should be getting faster and faster, since time is speeding up. All the fish clocks should stinking sooner today than in the past. Is this observed?

As an experiment, say we have two factories, side by side, with each using X energy and making Y defects per hour; relative to our reference. We place these two factories side-by-side. The first will be in a slower reference were time runs slower than us and the second will be in an expanded space-time reference where time runs faster than us. Next, we observed the output from both at the same time. This simulates the old universe and the new universe. We can do this with stars.

If space-time expansion affects are real, the slower reference factory will show less energy output and fewer defect per unit of earth time. The faster reference will appear to be the opposite shown more output and more entropy per unit of earth time? Is this observed if we compare the oldest and the newest stars?

If not, space-time expansion cannot be the answer. It may just be space that is expanding. Maybe someone can show us how entropy and energy output was slower way back when.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4719
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #7 on: 24/01/2016 13:13:06 »
yet time is defined by a rate,

Oh no it isn't. Time is defined as the separation between subsequent events. It is measured by the number of cycles of a cesium clock.

One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
« Last Edit: 24/01/2016 13:16:11 by alancalverd »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3162
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #8 on: 24/01/2016 13:50:04 »
yet time is defined by a rate,

Oh no it isn't. Time is defined as the separation between subsequent events. It is measured by the number of cycles of a cesium clock.

One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.

It is measured by the number of cycles per second, the second came before the caesium clock, how is cycles per second not a rate?

''One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles''

I completely disagree, 9,192,631,770 cycles it the rate of the caesium atom in 1 second, the cycles are not 1 second you have matched the amount of rate to equal one second.

It would not matter if there was only ten cycles in 1 second, the length of 1 second does not change. 1 second is a reference point distance, this can not alter,

I noticed how you left out cycles per second.

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1921
• Thanked: 124 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #9 on: 24/01/2016 15:17:04 »
yet time is defined by a rate,
Oh no it isn't. Time is defined as the separation between subsequent events. It is measured by the number of cycles of a cesium clock.

One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
I completely disagree,
Alan is right. Either the article you read is wrong or you have misread it.
1 second is not a distance.
It really does matter whether there are 9,192,631,770 cycles or 10 cycles in one second.
I'm beginning to understand why you are also confused over wavelength.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3162
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #10 on: 24/01/2016 15:22:14 »

Alan is right. Either the article you read is wrong or you have misread it.
1 second is not a distance.
It really does matter whether there are 9,192,631,770 cycles or 10 cycles in one second.
I'm beginning to understand why you are also confused over wavelength.

I do not think you have it right there Colin, the number of cycles is used to represent a second, but the second came before the caesium clock, the cycles were originally timed by a normal second and made equal to a second.  1 second is a distance, any measurement starts at zero and has to have an end point.

#### alysdexia

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 121
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #11 on: 24/01/2016 16:49:22 »
Thebox, you need a bunch of these: ∆δd−÷∇.  Make use of these or don't come back.

who's -> whose
it's -> its
affect -> effect
faster -> swifter

I take it this forum is actually full of engineers and other handykin.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4719
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #12 on: 24/01/2016 16:50:03 »
Cycles per second is indeed a rate. So how many seconds are there in a second? One, always and for ever, by definition.

Quote
the cycles were originally timed by a normal second
What, pray, is a normal second? There are solar seconds (1/86400 of a solar day, used for daytime celestial navigation and general timekeeping) and siderial seconds (a bit shorter, used for night celestial navigation and astronomy) but as the earth wobbles a bit, the international standard second is only and exactly the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4719
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #13 on: 24/01/2016 16:54:52 »
I take it this forum is actually full of engineers and other handykin.

Not entirely. There are a few prancing pedants and supercilious smartarses who add nothing to the debate. Given the choice, I prefer to teach physic's to greengrocer's wot come to lern.

#### evan_au

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4126
• Thanked: 247 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #14 on: 24/01/2016 20:44:27 »
Quote from: TheBox
1 second is a distance, any measurement starts at zero and has to have an end point.
In the metric system used by scientists (SI):
- Distance is measured in meters between two points in space.
- Time is measured in seconds, between two points in time.

By taking something periodic like the motion of the Earth around the Sun, you have something which takes a certain amount of time to move a certain distance. So it is possible that you could confuse the units and say that "1 second is a distance".  In this case, the distance is zero because the Earth returns to its original position

But Time and Distance are different units, and should not be confused.

Quote
the second came before the caesium clock, the cycles were originally timed by a normal second and made equal to a second.
The first definition of a second was with mechanical clocks, trying to track the average length of the day.

But the length of a day is a figure that keeps changing (eg due to tidal influence of the Moon, weather on Earth, etc). So in 1960, the length of the day was redefined as being a fraction of the year 1900, which, being in the past, did not change.

As clocks improved, it was possible to get atomic clocks (eg rubidium and cesium clocks) that were relatively cheap, and even portable. These could measure time in any lab more accurately than your average engineer, chemist or physicist could work out the length of the year 1900. So the length of the second was once again redefined, based on oscillation of cesium atoms.

This redefinition did not make the measurement less accurate, since the best astronomical data was used in making this calibration. But it did make time measurement more accurate and accessible for anyone who wanted to measure time in their own laboratory.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second#Based_on_mechanical_clocks

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3162
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #15 on: 24/01/2016 22:10:33 »
Quote from: TheBox
1 second is a distance, any measurement starts at zero and has to have an end point.
In the metric system used by scientists (SI):
- Distance is measured in meters between two points in space.
- Time is measured in seconds, between two points in time.

By taking something periodic like the motion of the Earth around the Sun, you have something which takes a certain amount of time to move a certain distance. So it is possible that you could confuse the units and say that "1 second is a distance".  In this case, the distance is zero because the Earth returns to its original position

But Time and Distance are different units, and should not be confused.

Quote
the second came before the caesium clock, the cycles were originally timed by a normal second and made equal to a second.
The first definition of a second was with mechanical clocks, trying to track the average length of the day.

But the length of a day is a figure that keeps changing (eg due to tidal influence of the Moon, weather on Earth, etc). So in 1960, the length of the day was redefined as being a fraction of the year 1900, which, being in the past, did not change.

As clocks improved, it was possible to get atomic clocks (eg rubidium and cesium clocks) that were relatively cheap, and even portable. These could measure time in any lab more accurately than your average engineer, chemist or physicist could work out the length of the year 1900. So the length of the second was once again redefined, based on oscillation of cesium atoms.

This redefinition did not make the measurement less accurate, since the best astronomical data was used in making this calibration. But it did make time measurement more accurate and accessible for anyone who wanted to measure time in their own laboratory.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second#Based_on_mechanical_clocks

''- Distance is measured in meters between two points in space.
- Time is measured in seconds, between two points in time.''

Time is measured in seconds between two points of time, how is measuring between two points not a distance?

A............B   distance
A............B   time

Ok let us define we will use the speed of light in a vacuum to measure ''time''

The speed of light is constant as you know so is a perfect thing for measuring a rate of time.

299792458 m  we define has an equal distance of c to 1 second

So in experiment I take 4 caesium clocks and fly them around the world twice, for each caesium clock there is a second clock of light timing the experiment

so we have 4 caesium clocks and 4 invariant light clocks.

clock A-light clock A

clock B-light clock B

clock C-light clock C

clock D-light clock D

All my light clocks

0.....................................1s
0.....................................1s
0.....................................1s
0.....................................1s

This never changes , my light clocks show no dilation of time while the inaccurate variant caesium clock is simply not a constant.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3162
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #16 on: 24/01/2016 22:22:14 »
Cycles per second is indeed a rate. So how many seconds are there in a second? One, always and for ever, by definition.

Quote
the cycles were originally timed by a normal second
What, pray, is a normal second? There are solar seconds (1/86400 of a solar day, used for daytime celestial navigation and general timekeeping) and siderial seconds (a bit shorter, used for night celestial navigation and astronomy) but as the earth wobbles a bit, the international standard second is only and exactly the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.

Quote me If I am incorrect, the caesium atom is in space-time so there is no way it can truly measure time.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3162
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #17 on: 24/01/2016 22:25:26 »
OK.. I don't know why but I'll give it one more go.
Seeing as you are not making it relative to anything than it can only mean that it is relative to yourself. Time for you will never change it's rate. You will age at the same rate until the day you die. That is irrelevant of your perceived speed, or the fact that you live in a Gravity well. In fact it makes no difference even if you went to space or even if you started accelerating towards the speed of light.
Time for you will always run at the same rate whatever system you want to measure it by. It has for all your past, it is now, and it is not going to change in your future.
You can not make your own time do anything other than run at the same rate.

My time always runs at the same rate, your time always runs at the same rate, both of our times run at the same rate, time rate can not be different for different observers regardless of motion,
Like my question, what is the rate of space-time?

Not the rate of an atom, the rate of time?  A caesium atom exists in space-time and can not measure space-time

Science may has well say a dripping taps speed effects time, it is the equivalent to saying the rate of an atom changing effects time, the caesium is a clock with a rate no different to a dripping tap.

How can a changing rate of something, that is a measuring aid, effect space-time?  it simply can not.

« Last Edit: 24/01/2016 22:33:42 by Thebox »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3162
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #18 on: 24/01/2016 22:40:50 »
I will ask it this way, the speed of light between A and B is an invariant, so If we flew 4 caesium clocks through this invariant, how does this effect the invariant constant in any way?

I consider the mistake is timing is different from time.

I consider the Keating experiment shows a timing dilation rather than a time dilation.

The Caesium atom frequency change being just that, the frequencies are out of sync in a period of time rather than time being out of sync.

Based on space-time=∞0

consider this

1.  Travelling an X vector from left to right, we observe a distant object in our future path,
2.  Travelling an X vector from left to right, we observe a distant object in our future past,

object.............0→...................object
t=→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→

Our past, our present, our future existing simultaneously
« Last Edit: 24/01/2016 23:03:21 by Thebox »

#### Space Flow

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 400
• Thanked: 31 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #19 on: 24/01/2016 23:02:08 »
All my light clocks

0.....................................1s
0.....................................1s
0.....................................1s
0.....................................1s

This never changes , my light clocks show no dilation of time while the inaccurate variant caesium clock is simply not a constant.
My time always runs at the same rate, your time always runs at the same rate, both of our times run at the same rate, time rate can not be different for different observers regardless of motion,
Like my question, what is the rate of space-time?
OK.. you are of course wrong about the light clock versus the cesium clock. In the same reference frame they would display time at the same rate. Any clock of any description whatsoever would be affected in exactly the same way. Learn Relativity.
It is not the clock or type of device or the way you make an observation that is seen to change, and it is never seen to change for an observer within the same reference frame.
Your light clock and the cesium clock will never vary in your own reference frame, but they will both vary by the exact same amount from my reference frame looking at yours.

Rate of time for me in my reference frame is the same as rate of time for you in your reference frame. But looking from one reference frame to the other, unless we were hugging, the rates would never match. Even if you and me were in the same room with you sitting at the table and me pacing they would not match.

Now you can try and word it any weird way you like, but that is a fact backed up by empirical evidence.
You may not like it, but that is irrelevant to the Universe. It basically doesn't give a sh1t whether you like how it works or not.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3162
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #20 on: 24/01/2016 23:04:34 »
consider this

1.  Travelling an X vector from left to right, we observe a distant object in our future path,
2.  Travelling an X vector from left to right, we observe a distant object in our future past,

object.............0→...................object
t=→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→

Our past, our present, our future existing simultaneously

I know about the clocks. I know what a clock.. you missed this I think

consider this

1.  Travelling an X vector from left to right, we observe a distant object in our future path,
2.  Travelling an X vector from left to right, we observe a distant object in our future past,

object.............0→...................object
t=→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→

Our past, our present, our future existing simultaneously

SORRY QUOTE FAILURE

#### Space Flow

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 400
• Thanked: 31 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #21 on: 24/01/2016 23:10:34 »
If you can really observe a distant object in your future, you are definitely on the wrong forum.
I'm sure there must be forums for discussing the paranormal somewhere...

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4719
• Thanked: 155 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #22 on: 24/01/2016 23:14:59 »
Cycles per second is indeed a rate. So how many seconds are there in a second? One, always and for ever, by definition.

Quote
the cycles were originally timed by a normal second
What, pray, is a normal second? There are solar seconds (1/86400 of a solar day, used for daytime celestial navigation and general timekeeping) and siderial seconds (a bit shorter, used for night celestial navigation and astronomy) but as the earth wobbles a bit, the international standard second is only and exactly the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.

Quote me If I am incorrect, the caesium atom is in space-time so there is no way it can truly measure time.

Nobody said it did. I said we measure time by counting the cycles of its radiation. Fortunately we know enough about relativistic time dilatation to allow us to measure time with sufficient accuracy to navigate by GPS.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3162
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #23 on: 24/01/2016 23:28:30 »
If you can really observe a distant object in your future, you are definitely on the wrong forum.
I'm sure there must be forums for discussing the paranormal somewhere...

Huh?  if you are travelling a journey, let us say you are going to the moon, it takes an amount of ''time'' to get there, you can see the moon, technically you can see your future ahead of you.

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1921
• Thanked: 124 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #24 on: 24/01/2016 23:44:20 »
Huh?  if you are travelling a journey, let us say you are going to the moon, it takes an amount of ''time'' to get there, you can see the moon, technically you can see your future ahead of you.
You don't see the future, but you can see where you are going. That allows you to predict where and when you will be in the future and avoid bumping into things.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #24 on: 24/01/2016 23:44:20 »