# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: What is the rate of future time?  (Read 5070 times)

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3157
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #50 on: 26/01/2016 13:35:31 »

I learn every time I am engaged in discussion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, if I said the sky is red you would say it is blue, your reaction being the present answer.

My way of learning is to try to think first without knowing, or just knowing enough,  then learn the knowing, some knowing I know from forum life.

If I come across something new I often just type the word and definition on the end in google and just view the definition, Then take it from there with my ideas to gain more information by your engagement, thinking as we go along.

I thank you Colin, this moderator position is truly suited for you.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4707
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #51 on: 26/01/2016 22:57:51 »
time- the measurable event of change.
Wrong - indeed meaningless. Time is the dimension that separates sequential events. If you don't understand the definition, you won't get very far with any discussion of time.

As for "the speed of time", what you and Colin are discussing is the speed of time zones, which has nothing much to do with time. The time everywhere in the universe is exactly the same - UTC or Z time. The legal number on a clock, however, depends on where it is on the surface of the earth, and since that number is determined by an act of parliament, it is defined by politics, not physics. As a simple instance, legal time in Spain is Z + 1  even though most of the country is to the west of London, and during the summer it is Z + 2, but the time at the north and south poles is always Z.
« Last Edit: 26/01/2016 23:11:42 by alancalverd »

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1915
• Thanked: 123 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #52 on: 26/01/2016 23:23:56 »
if I said the sky is red you would say it is blue
That's because if the sky is red you are likely to say it's blue

What I was trying to do was show you the consequences of using what you call speed of time.
As Alan says, it has little to do with time, it is merely the speed at which a point on the equator moves. That speed varies with latitude which makes it of little use as a standard of anything.
Most importantly it tells us nothing about time.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3157
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #53 on: 27/01/2016 02:51:47 »
time- the measurable event of change.
Wrong - indeed meaningless. Time is the dimension that separates sequential events. If you don't understand the definition, you won't get very far with any discussion of time.

wrong, n-dimensional space is that which separates sequential events.  Time does not exist.

And that in which I was discussing with Colin, is how science presently measures the rate of the none existing time.

If you don't understand the difference between arbitrary time of a clock and the 0 time of space, you won't get very far with any discussion of time.

Let us  discuss the nature of looking ahead relative to  a body in motions future destination , you call this prediction, I call it inevitable.

How is this a prediction when you can see the start and the finish of the ''race''?

It is not a prediction it is a result .

so let us imagine a distance that takes 100 years to travel, I can look ahead and see the 100 year point, relative to  me by time I arrive I will be in the future from now, I can predict I will be dead before I get there. I can also predict that if I remain ''stationary'', relatively my death time will not change.
Whether I make the journey or do not make journey is irrelevant, the now stays with me no matter what I do.
time can not be measured for one simple reason, anything after 0 quantifies as a distance.

0.277 mile is the present distance, the speed of time is presently 0.277 mile per second(clock time), I am not discussing time zones, I am discussing sciences mistakes. This particular mistake being time=distance, two different things meaning the same thing, a frequency rate over a d(x) is the same as a frequency rate over t(x), d(x) and t(x) being identical in length.

t(x) - d(x) = 0

t(x)=d(x)

fr1=c/x

fr2=var(c)/x

t=1

d=1

« Last Edit: 27/01/2016 03:22:33 by Thebox »

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1915
• Thanked: 123 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #54 on: 27/01/2016 09:01:51 »

wrong, n-dimensional space is that which separates sequential events.  Time does not exist.

And that in which I was discussing with Colin, is how science presently measures the rate of the none existing time.

Not as far as I was aware.
I was discussing the consequences of you using your measure of what you call 'rate of time' and your trying to use it to imply anything about time. The consequence is that your 'rate of time' varies depending on your position on the planet, which is of no use to anyone. Also I don't see any relationship to time that results from knowing London circles the earth at a slower mph than a location on the equator.
You are doing little more than looking at the speed of a car, it makes no difference to time how fast or slow it goes.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3157
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #55 on: 27/01/2016 09:11:30 »

Not as far as I was aware.
I was discussing the consequences of you using your measure of what you call 'rate of time' and your trying to use it to imply anything about time. The consequence is that your 'rate of time' varies depending on your position on the planet, which is of no use to anyone. Also I don't see any relationship to time that results from knowing London circles the earth at a slower mph than a location on the equator.
You are doing little more than looking at the speed of a car, it makes no difference to time how fast or slow it goes.

Choose your words wisely my friend, lions pounce on ambiguity.

''You are doing little more than looking at the speed of a car, it makes no difference to time how fast or slow it goes.''

You are doing little more than looking at the speed of a light when observing a Caesium frequency, it makes no difference to time how fast or slow it goes and is in comparison to looking at the speed of a car.

I lead you to thus far, now do you understand about ''time dilation''?

You are not observing time you observing the speed of something that is not time.

The value of space-time 0∞ all other values are watching the car in the 0∞

Light propagates through space-time, the frequency of light does not affect space-time, a dilation in frequency can not possibly affect the value of zero.

In a ''blank'' space there is no history you were ever there thus proposing space-time values to equal zero and thus proposing the existence of a separate entity of matter-time with a single existence value of 1.
Presenting space-time has a virtual representation of time of zero time, and presenting matter-time as the concrete existence of time.  The value of 1 representing a single lifetime, which has a finite random length in 0∞ space-time.

« Last Edit: 27/01/2016 09:44:01 by Thebox »

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1915
• Thanked: 123 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #56 on: 27/01/2016 11:16:38 »
now do you understand about ''time dilation''?
Yes I do.
The speed of a car depends on the relative speed of the observer and the observed - Galilean Relativity.
The speed of light does not depend on the relative speed of the observer and the observed - Special Relativity.
You will notice there is a difference, that difference results in time dilation, amongst other things.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3157
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #57 on: 27/01/2016 11:36:49 »

The speed of light does not depend on the relative speed of the observer and the observed - Special Relativity.

let us discourse your sentence, the speed of light does not depend on the relative speed of the observer,

I observe this differently, relative to an observer if we imagine an observer travelling at c at a velocity approaching a light emitter, the observer will observe c to be twice as fast

c→→←←c - TheBox's relativity

If we imagine d=10  from A-B

let us imagine it takes t=10s for A to travel to B

Now let us imagine A travels to B and B travels to A , the journey is t=5s

Relatively c is dependent to a stationary reference frame between two points.
« Last Edit: 27/01/2016 11:56:28 by Thebox »

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1915
• Thanked: 123 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #58 on: 27/01/2016 12:32:34 »
I observe this differently
No you don't, you haven't observed anything. You have performed no experiments, you have not analysed any experiments to see how they work.

if we imagine an observer travelling at c at a velocity approaching a light emitter, the observer will observe c to be twice as fast
Imagine all you like, reality continues despite your imagination.

I will leave you to your views and ideas. With such a fundamental misunderstanding we are going nowhere in any discussion.
I realise you think I've got it wrong, but that's not a problem to me.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3157
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #59 on: 27/01/2016 12:57:39 »
I observe this differently
No you don't, you haven't observed anything. You have performed no experiments, you have not analysed any experiments to see how they work.

if we imagine an observer travelling at c at a velocity approaching a light emitter, the observer will observe c to be twice as fast
Imagine all you like, reality continues despite your imagination.

I will leave you to your views and ideas. With such a fundamental misunderstanding we are going nowhere in any discussion.
I realise you think I've got it wrong, but that's not a problem to me.

You have not got it wrong, you did not make any theory.  The reality is exactly what I have just explained, whether or not you believe in imagination, when the imagination is imaging axioms, I think that tells reality.

Relatively c is dependent to a stationary reference frame between two points an axiom.

« Last Edit: 27/01/2016 14:28:15 by Thebox »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4707
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #60 on: 27/01/2016 17:50:27 »
The axiom is wrong. c is measurably constant for all observers. Try measuring it for yourself before stating that it is variable.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3157
• Thanked: 45 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #61 on: 27/01/2016 22:53:52 »
The axiom is wrong. c is measurably constant for all observers. Try measuring it for yourself before stating that it is variable.

c is measurable in a stationary reference frame, your background has to be a stationary reference frame , i.e we do not observe space moving, we observe things moving in a stationary reference frame. My constant-'constant.

I am sure I would measure any speed to be a constant between two points when the object is not accelerating. and besides I think it was Colin who presumed I was attacking the constant, but I wasn't I was attacking the caesium frequency change.

Distance and time is a constant, so if we measure using a set time and distance, any frequency change between the points is a speed change.   So define this as you will.

#### alysdexia

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 121
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #62 on: 30/01/2016 10:16:29 »

I learn every time I am engaged in discussion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, if I said the sky is red you would say it is blue, your reaction being the present answer.  =

And I would say it is blee or blea, not blue as the sea is blue.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #62 on: 30/01/2016 10:16:29 »