[GoC (OP)]

   Time is a big part of Relativity but we each have a vague idea of what exactly we are referring to when we say time. In the relativistic view time is variable depending on your position in GR and speed in SR. We have to ask ourselves what is the common issue especially since there is an equivalence between GR and SR. Well we have to go with c as the constant because the measurement of c is the timed equivalence as a constant. Now we have to ask what is c? We measure the limit and consistency of c by the photon. You might be ahead of me at this point but here it is 'what is a photon?'.  Here is what we know. A photon defines the parameters of energy by distance traveled. The photon is confounded in every frame with the electron cycle to measure the speed of light always the same in all frames. This does not mean the clock tick rate is the same in every frame only that the electron and photon move relative to each other in every frame.

The clock tick rate is relative to the photon and electron which we recognize as energy. Where does energy come from? The electron moves as perpetual motion but how can perpetual motion exist? It cannot without a mechanical cause. So fundamental energy must be of space itself. What causes fundamental energy? That would be the next step of unknowns but electrons move by the energy state in which they exist. It is the electron that moves a clocks tick rate relative to c as energy. It is energy that moves the electrons perpetual motion. So:

Time=Motion=Energy

Is there a logical argument against this line of reasoning?

[guest39538]

   Time is a big part of Relativity but we each have a vague idea of what exactly we are referring to when we say time. In the relativistic view time is variable depending on your position in GR and speed in SR. We have to ask ourselves what is the common issue especially since there is an equivalence between GR and SR. Well we have to go with c as the constant because the measurement of c is the timed equivalence as a constant. Now we have to ask what is c? We measure the limit and consistency of c by the photon. You might be ahead of me at this point but here it is 'what is a photon?'.  Here is what we know. A photon defines the parameters of energy by distance traveled. The photon is confounded in every frame with the electron cycle to measure the speed of light always the same in all frames. This does not mean the clock tick rate is the same in every frame only that the electron and photon move relative to each other in every frame.

The clock tick rate is relative to the photon and electron which we recognize as energy. Where does energy come from? The electron moves as perpetual motion but how can perpetual motion exist? It cannot without a mechanical cause. So fundamental energy must be of space itself. What causes fundamental energy? That would be the next step of unknowns but electrons move by the energy state in which they exist. It is the electron that moves a clocks tick rate relative to c as energy. It is energy that moves the electrons perpetual motion. So:

Time=Motion=Energy

Is there a logical argument against this line of reasoning?

You are not defining time, you are defining motion through space- time.  I will give a logical argument in a single diagram.


What is the rate of time for a ''background''?

[GoC (OP)]

   Time is a big part of Relativity but we each have a vague idea of what exactly we are referring to when we say time. In the relativistic view time is variable depending on your position in GR and speed in SR. We have to ask ourselves what is the common issue especially since there is an equivalence between GR and SR. Well we have to go with c as the constant because the measurement of c is the timed equivalence as a constant. Now we have to ask what is c? We measure the limit and consistency of c by the photon. You might be ahead of me at this point but here it is 'what is a photon?'.  Here is what we know. A photon defines the parameters of energy by distance traveled. The photon is confounded in every frame with the electron cycle to measure the speed of light always the same in all frames. This does not mean the clock tick rate is the same in every frame only that the electron and photon move relative to each other in every frame.

The clock tick rate is relative to the photon and electron which we recognize as energy. Where does energy come from? The electron moves as perpetual motion but how can perpetual motion exist? It cannot without a mechanical cause. So fundamental energy must be of space itself. What causes fundamental energy? That would be the next step of unknowns but electrons move by the energy state in which they exist. It is the electron that moves a clocks tick rate relative to c as energy. It is energy that moves the electrons perpetual motion. So:

Time=Motion=Energy

Is there a logical argument against this line of reasoning?

You are not defining time, you are defining motion through space- time.  I will give a logical argument in a single diagram.
What is the rate of time for a ''background''?

Time is a measurement of motion. So what is the rate of a heart beat? You have to ask relative to what? Relative to how fast is the chart speed recording? How fast relative to c? How fast relative to the electron cycle? Time is a relative measurement only. How much depth is in your questions?

[McQueen]

In order to understand time it is necessary to first define what it is.  The very first factor that occurs to one is that of causality, time governs causality , time is one way, it is not possible to reverse time, time is a period or duration that can be measured by an event, preferably a regularly repeating event,  as for instance the orbit of the planets around the sun or the orbit of the moon around the earth, or the duration that a burning candle takes to consume a certain amount of  wax or the duration that a fixed volume of sand takes to fall from one container into another and so on. So far so good, but none of any of these definitions would hold good if objects were able to move fast enough to break the barrier that time represents.  What exactly is this barrier ? It is when events occur in random order. Because the speed of light is so huge, one way of thinking about the barrier that represents causality is that it is represented by the speed of light. But a more realistic way of thinking about causality is in terms of an excess of energy.

Imagine a situation where so much energy is available that atoms lose their electrons, in this state obviously matter and time and everything else that is related to matter ceases to exist and it won't be possible to tell what is past what is present and what is the future. Everything would exist in a continuum where past , present and future flow seamlessly into each other.  The only way in which light can step into the role of being the limiting factor governing causality is if it is travelling through a medium and the medium regulates its speed.  Then medium would then represent causality and  it becomes obvious that if anything travels faster than light causality would no longer hold good.  This is the only way in which light can be a limiting factor.

This is amazingly similar to the Hindu philosophy of  Maya, where all experience is an illusion.

[guest39538]

   Time is a big part of Relativity but we each have a vague idea of what exactly we are referring to when we say time. In the relativistic view time is variable depending on your position in GR and speed in SR. We have to ask ourselves what is the common issue especially since there is an equivalence between GR and SR. Well we have to go with c as the constant because the measurement of c is the timed equivalence as a constant. Now we have to ask what is c? We measure the limit and consistency of c by the photon. You might be ahead of me at this point but here it is 'what is a photon?'.  Here is what we know. A photon defines the parameters of energy by distance traveled. The photon is confounded in every frame with the electron cycle to measure the speed of light always the same in all frames. This does not mean the clock tick rate is the same in every frame only that the electron and photon move relative to each other in every frame.

The clock tick rate is relative to the photon and electron which we recognize as energy. Where does energy come from? The electron moves as perpetual motion but how can perpetual motion exist? It cannot without a mechanical cause. So fundamental energy must be of space itself. What causes fundamental energy? That would be the next step of unknowns but electrons move by the energy state in which they exist. It is the electron that moves a clocks tick rate relative to c as energy. It is energy that moves the electrons perpetual motion. So:

Time=Motion=Energy

Is there a logical argument against this line of reasoning?

You are not defining time, you are defining motion through space- time.  I will give a logical argument in a single diagram.
What is the rate of time for a ''background''?

Time is a measurement of motion. So what is the rate of a heart beat? You have to ask relative to what? Relative to how fast is the chart speed recording? How fast relative to c? How fast relative to the electron cycle? Time is a relative measurement only. How much depth is in your questions?

My questions are deep , often beyond most peoples perception of reality. 

Everything is relative to 0, you must understand this if you wish to move on in your knowledge of the Universe. 


Consider this , the said big bang, before the big bang there was nothing, from the big bang forwarding to now, time spread isotropic at an equal rate .   

How deep would you like me to go?   I could take you on a journey back in time and discourse our ancestors thoughts if you wish. 




Did you know that when our ancestors were thinking about ''how'' and came up with such theory as God, they were really considering space. Try to understand that nothing, not even a ''God'' can exist without a space to exist in.


Space precedes everything, space is everything, 

[GoC (OP)]

Mike

The speed of light could be anything and there would be no going back to the past. That is si fi. Light is the measured distance for energy. Motion is caused by energy of the medium. Time as a clock measures the zero point energy state in your environment.

Box
The BB is a fairy tail named by a catholic priest. It follows their Bible. BH's proves a BB is not mathematically in the timeline of thirteen billion years. You and mainstream are just wrong mathematically in your theory. I trust math to negate a theory you and they do not. According to BH formation the universe has to be trillions of years old not just billions. So your understanding of time is a fairy tale.

[guest39538]

Mike

The speed of light could be anything and there would be no going back to the past. That is si fi. Light is the measured distance for energy. Motion is caused by energy of the medium. Time as a clock measures the zero point energy state in your environment.

Box
The BB is a fairy tail named by a catholic priest. It follows their Bible. BH's proves a BB is not mathematically in the timeline of thirteen billion years. You and mainstream are just wrong mathematically in your theory. I trust math to negate a theory you and they do not. According to BH formation the universe has to be trillions of years old not just billions. So your understanding of time is a fairy tale.

Huh? it is not my big bang and not once do I say I believe in the big bang to be true .

Again you ignore the post/

[GoC (OP)]

Consider this , the said big bang, before the big bang there was nothing, from the big bang forwarding to now, time spread isotropic at an equal rate .     

Sorry if you think I misjudged your statements.

[guest39538]

Consider this , the said big bang, before the big bang there was nothing, from the big bang forwarding to now, time spread isotropic at an equal rate .     

Sorry if you think I misjudged your statements.

I am sorry if I my sentence is ambiguous, I was trying to show that ''their'' ideas of time, that began at the said big bang expanded outwards at an equal rate,

These two sentences go together :

Everything is relative to 0, you must understand this if you wish to move on in your knowledge of the Universe. 
Consider this , the said big bang, before the big bang there was nothing, from the big bang forwarding to now, time spread isotropic at an equal rate .

I was showing that ''time'' from ''their'' understanding began at 0t, expanded outwards from 0t, their understanding being associated with distance of the ''expansion''.

However one must ask oneself , expanding into what exactly?   Physical evidence shows for something to expand, such as a balloon, there MUST be pre-existing space to expand into. ''Things'' can not expand if there is solidity in the way preventing expansion such as an aerosol and the gases inside become compressed.

Either way , I do not agree with the big bang, to many illogical thoughts involved in the big bang.   Logic suggests space pre-exists any manifestation of matter by the simple premise mentioned about physical evidence observed locally.


''They'' must realise that their ''vision'' of nothing is no more than a zero point source occupying a vast ''dark space''.

In laymen terms, there is simply no such thing as nothing, nothing does not ''exist'', there is always something in the form of space.

[guest39538]

Defining time : Time is the isotropic spacial continuum that allows the manifestation of matter for a limited period of travelling through/in time


WE observe stars been born in time , no ''god's'' create that star, time creates that star.


Added- discourse the thought , ''in the beginning there was nothing, no time existed'', no time existed because the thinking of nothing defines a 0 point source without dimensions, i.e no spacial volume. However surrounding a zero point source is always  ''dark space'' or to be more technical the firmament of the mind.

It is light between the distance stars, the light expands beyond the stars, the firmament of observation is ''tricking'' us, the ''edge'' of our visual universe is an observation limitation relative to the inverse square law and perspective view ''vanishing points''. Visual matter scales down in visual size the greater the distance away from an observer, until the eventuality the visual matter becomes a zero point source.


Observation is finite , not space, it is absolute that observation is finite.


In closing ones eyes , one does not see nothing, one see's a dark area of 3 dimension, x,y and t


Only if one was to add ''light'' to the picture and a point source does one see the forth dimension of z. However even with the 4 dimensions complete, the ''box'' is limited in visual size, limited by the earlier mentioned science.   The 5th dimension being the outer universe and mind firmament , i.e the unseen/unknown



 

[guest4091]

 What is time?
The operational definition of assigning a time to an event as mentioned by A.E. in the 1905 paper is essentially what it is, and how it's been done since humans appeared.
It is a correspondence convention, i.e., assigning events of interest to standard clock events, a measure and ordering of activity, with 'time' always increasing/accumulating.
It is an accounting scheme developed out of practical necessity, for human activities like agriculture, business, travel, science, etc. The unit of measure for time initially referred to relative positions of astronomical objects, stars, sun, and moon, which implies earth rotations and earth orbits. The year equates to the periodic motion of the earth relative to the sun, the month, the moon relative to the earth, and the day, the earth rotation relative to the stars. All units of time are by definition, involving spatial motion or distance. The clock further divides the day into smaller units of measure. The reference in the 1905 paper of the watch hand to a position on the watch face involves nothing more than counting hand cycles (hand motion of specific distances representing subdivisions of a day). Current scientific research requires clocks that generate smaller and more precise periods than those of the past. The second is defined as n wave lengths of a specific frequency of light. Note "n wave lengths" is a distance, but labeled as "time".
If we use a light based clock to time the speed of an object along a known distance x, what are we actually doing?
We are comparing the simultaneous motion of an object to the motion of light for a duration (number of ticks). The result is a ratio x/s = vt/ct = v/c or speed. It should be obvious that the ticks serve to correlate the positions of the object with the positions of the light signal, for simultaneous comparisons. If you use Minkowski space-time diagrams the vertical scale is not 'time', but ct, light path distance, i.e. they plot speed. You 're comparing apples to apples.
In summation: A clock provides a beat or rhythm to coordinate events.
 

[GoC (OP)]

Bravo phyti

We relate everything to c. c is a distance relative to motion with the photon considered total energy available. Time = Motion=Energy. So time measures the energy state of a frame. So potential energy decreases as the tick rate decreases. Gravity becomes an energy issue with mass being attracted to the lowest potential energy. This strongly suggests energy does not come from mass but is reduced by mass. Mass is only kinetic and not fundamental zero point energy.

[guest39538]

Bravo phyti

We relate everything to c. c is a distance relative to motion with the photon considered total energy available. Time = Motion=Energy. So time measures the energy state of a frame. So potential energy decreases as the tick rate decreases. Gravity becomes an energy issue with mass being attracted to the lowest potential energy. This strongly suggests energy does not come from mass but is reduced by mass. Mass is only kinetic and not fundamental zero point energy.

I have been saying this for a while now, I also have been saying it is  incorrect to relate everything to c, c is a speed, time does not equal motion or anything of such.  Time=time and there is no equivalence to this so why do keep insisting on something that is not true?

c is equivalent to the amount of ''time''  light travels between two points, the time exists whether the Photon makes its journey or not.  If a photon was NOT to travel from the sun to earth, do you think time would stop?  Obviously not, so why such absurdity when time continues in the ''dark'' with no c and no motion and even no E  in absolute darkness?

[GoC (OP)]

We must agree to disagree.

[jeffreyH]

Time is the measure of the rate of change. Change is incremental and continuous. Time is only defined by something that changes at an invariant and regular rate in the local frame of reference. On a global scale time varies with position in a gravitational field or via the magnitude of the velocity of the moving frame.

[GoC (OP)]

Time is a measure of the energy state of dilation in GR and the hypotenuse travel distance relative to c perpendicular leg in SR. So in reality clocks are a measure of energy and use of energy by mass. Math follows relativity observations as energy use of total c available.

[guest39538]

Time is the measure of the rate of change.

No, that would be timing, if you are using rate of change you are timing that rate relative to time and relative to 0.

I really do not think any of you understand what time is.   

[GoC (OP)]

Time is the measure of the rate of change.

No, that would be timing, if you are using rate of change you are timing that rate relative to time and relative to 0.

I really do not think any of you understand what time is.   

It takes motion for a rate of change (relative to c). It takes energy for motion. The photon is considered the maximum energy of c. A light clock measures the distance a photon travels for its tick rate. The energy state of a frame controls the tick rate of the clock. Both mechanical and light clocks tick at the same rate in every frame.

All you have is timing?

[guest39538]

All you have is timing?

Finally one of you got it at last, I am glad it was you GOC . Yes all ''you'' have and all ''they'' ever had was relative timing.  Timing the measure of rate of change  of things all relative to 0.




So now you understand that, can you now 'see' why an observer is timing things relative to themselves and their ''timing''?


e.g an observer is timing a race car going around a track relative to their own amount of timing of themselves observing. The cars speed having no affect on the timing of oneself, equivalent to the cars speed. Lets say the car travels at 100 mph, the car has travelled 100 mile equivalent  and relative to the observers 1 hour.


Understand that speed is relative to the observers rate of timing.   In short if the rate of timing was twice the rate of the now timing, the car would be travelling relatively 200 mph relative to the observer.



People need to objectively ''see''' past the illusion and not make the mistake of interweaving time and timing something in time in being one and the same. i.e the caesium dilation is a timing dilation, the timing rate slows down relative to the previous timing rate relative to 0.
Ten ticks in 1 second relative to 0 seconds.
5 ticks relative to 1 second relative to 0 seconds.


added - thought:  The Caesium atom in motion loses entropy rate gain so slows down its entropy rate  output.  Imagine the Caesium to be like a rechargeable battery that was gaining a constant ''charge'' at ground state, diminish the gain in any way, diminish the output rate. Because the equilibrium of the atom is to gain and loss at an equal rate.

Because the K_max=hf/S/S................................................................................................continuous.

[guest4091]

Bravo phyti

We relate everything to c. c is a distance relative to motion with the photon considered total energy available. Time = Motion=Energy. So time measures the energy state of a frame. So potential energy decreases as the tick rate decreases. Gravity becomes an energy issue with mass being attracted to the lowest potential energy. This strongly suggests energy does not come from mass but is reduced by mass. Mass is only kinetic and not fundamental zero point energy.

I have been saying this for a while now, I also have been saying it is  incorrect to relate everything to c, c is a speed, time does not equal motion or anything of such.  Time=time and there is no equivalence to this so why do keep insisting on something that is not true?

c is equivalent to the amount of ''time''  light travels between two points, the time exists whether the Photon makes its journey or not.  If a photon was NOT to travel from the sun to earth, do you think time would stop?  Obviously not, so why such absurdity when time continues in the ''dark'' with no c and no motion and even no E  in absolute darkness?

Subjective time requires memory, which allows a comparison of a current state to a previous state for any changes, which lends itself to an interpretation of 'time' flowing. Patients with brain damage to specific areas involved in maintaining a personal chronology, lose their ability to estimate elapsed time, short or long term. Consider the fact that people waking from a comatose state, have no memory of how much elapsed time, whether hrs, days, or even years.
If you are in a cave with no light and no clock, how do you know how much 'time' has elapsed? You rely on your memory.
Since you can't see any of your surroundings, you rely on your biological perception concluding you are still self aware, breathing, pulse, etc. This requires energy, so there is (must be) E , if there is awareness.
The mind supplies the perception of continuity of events just as it supplies the perception of motion for the viewing a sequence of still images, movies and electronic screens.
Any uniform periodic event serves as a clock to meter/measure 'time' just as a stick with uniform marks serves to measure distance. Time like distance is an intangible relation  that is malleable in the process of motion.
Like the planetary orbits, the lunar sphere, lines, points, etc., these things only exist in the mind. They are real as mental constructs, but there is nothing corresponding to them in the physical world outside the mind.