[GoC]

Ok,

What causes entropy?
Why can't we measure entropy of a photon?
If perpetual motion in the electron of mass is energy than why does mass have entropy?

[MichaelMD]

If Time were simply a dimension invented by man, time could not speed up and slow down, as has been shown scientifically.


In the model of Universal Ether that I use, the ether contains a sea of elemental units derived from a "first causal world" that oscillated, after which the oscillating "points" underwent oscillatory fatigue, in which adjacent point-pairs fell together, as in the Yin and Yang depiction. Then the two loosely-combined points had to reversibly return to singleton elemental points, which now were out-of-phase with the oscillating points, which broke the perfect symmetry of First World, and produced an energic ether, in which all the elemental units were identical, and also vibrational (as derived from the oscillational.) These elemental units would all be the same, and their outward vibrations would form loose connections with each other, producing a perfectly-linear energy (no spin, vectors, waves, or other non-linear energic mechanisms, as seen with quantum forces.) Resonances of multiple elemental ether units would then form entrainments, and larger energy units, up to the size of atoms.


The quantum and sub-quantum units that make up our structured atomic world, and which we are able to measure, have all been formed from the elemental ether units, which comprise an underlying unstructured ether-matrix, too finely rarified for us to detect or measure. The resonational interactions of these ether units, again, would be perfectly linear. (I submit that this is the only of model that can explain Quantum "Entanglement," as an example.


Since the elemental ether units vibrate, and since they also would be the elemental constituents of everything in our world, Time in our world would be derived from the rate of vibration of these elemental ether units. -This kind of model can account for how time can slow down or speed up.


When an object happens to be in a certain location that is high in energy, such as a magnetic field in space, its atoms become more energized, and the vibratory rate of the elemental units that make up its atoms vibrates at a faster rate. Time passes faster.


If an object is in a region of space where there is less energy, such as outer space, well removed from magnetic energy fields, its atoms vibrate slower, and Time slows down. The elemental units making up the objects atoms are in a vibrational resonance with the sea of elemental ether units in a region of space where less energy exists.


   
 

[guest39538]

Ok,

What causes entropy?
Why can't we measure entropy of a photon?
If perpetual motion in the electron of mass is energy than why does mass have entropy?

The cause of entropy is having the capability of storing E.   A photon can't be measured because it has 0 dimensions .  The electron is attracted to the Proton.

Unsure.

[guest39538]

If Time were simply a dimension invented by man, time could not speed up and slow down, as has been shown scientifically.



   
 

The way of measuring time is the invention by man, the only reason time slows down or speeds up is because S is a variance to start off with.

Time doe snot actually slow down or speed up, only the rate of measurement does this and that is because S is a variant.


added- also the ''rate'' of time is immediate/instant, there is no ''space'' between increments.

[GoC]

Time doe snot

Who's clock should we use?

[guest39538]

Time doe snot

Who's clock should we use?

One that is an invariant.

[GoC]

Ah yes the magic one.

[guest39538]

Ah yes the magic one.

There is nothing magical about a clock that was constant and synchronous to the beginning of time.  As long as it is constant it would be synchronous.  Maybe we could develop a Planck clock?

[GoC]

In which frame? Different dilations have different lengths before it would be recognized as a different position in space. Same for tick rate distances

[Mike Gale]

To answer the question posed in the title of this thread, the speed of time is one second per second or one year per year or whatever unit of time per whatever unit of time. Einstein taught us that my seconds (or years or whatever) are not necessarily the same as yours so the real question is how they differ. SR answers that question and it all boils down to one's perception of light speed, which is the only unambiguous way to measure distances in space.

[GoC]

To answer the question posed in the title of this thread, the speed of time is one second per second or one year per year or whatever unit of time per whatever unit of time. Einstein taught us that my seconds (or years or whatever) are not necessarily the same as yours so the real question is how they differ. SR answers that question and it all boils down to one's perception of light speed, which is the only unambiguous way to measure distances in space.

Einstein suggested all views are equally valid. Interestingly enough this allows that no view is valid. Each frame has its own measuring stick. When everyone measures with their own measuring stick we obtain many different values. There is no valid view same as there is no standard time.

which is the only unambiguous way to measure distances in space.

Your time and distance changes for every different frame. If you change your frame your tick rate and measuring stick change equally to measure the same speed of light. Your measuring the speed of light not unambiguous distances.

[guest39538]

In which frame? Different dilations have different lengths before it would be recognized as a different position in space. Same for tick rate distances

If the clock was an invariant then all frames become synchronous and time would be absolute like Newton proposed.   Using one increment immediately following an increment of Planck time would be as accurately close to measuring time possible.
i.e Earth Planck time = Venus Planck time.


tptptptptptptptp.............................

tp=c/dx

dx=1.6 x 10-35 m

R(t)=tp

dx is too short of a distance to dilate.

Any measurement of time greater than tp 5.39 × 10−44 s becomes immediate history.

[guest39538]

To answer the question posed in the title of this thread, the speed of time is one second per second or one year per year or whatever unit of time per whatever unit of time. Einstein taught us that my seconds (or years or whatever) are not necessarily the same as yours so the real question is how they differ. SR answers that question and it all boils down to one's perception of light speed, which is the only unambiguous way to measure distances in space.

Quite clearly you have failed to consider what is wrote in this thread.

[Ethos_]

Quite clearly you have failed to consider what is wrote in this thread.

Quite clearly you have a flawed understanding concerning the theory of Relativity.

There simply is NO "Universal common now" or a universal common present for which we might use as a "Standard" where we could reference other frames of time against,.............period!

[guest39538]

Quite clearly you have failed to consider what is wrote in this thread.

Quite clearly you have a flawed understanding concerning the theory of Relativity.

There simply is NO "Universal common now" or a universal common present for which we might use as a "Standard" where we could reference other frames of time against,.............period!

Quite clearly time exists without matter, but if you actually had listened I used time=motion= c energy by using tp (planck time).
''You'' are ''placing'' a present space of 3.24cm in the frame of now and claim the present dilates.

[guest39538]

Let me change the question for those who do not understand the question.

At what pace does the present become the past?

[Ethos_]

Let me change the question for those who do not understand the question.

At what pace does the present become the past?

All depends on one's personal frame MrBox. If you are traveling at a significant percentage of c, your seconds will advance at a much slower rate compared to someone at rest. If you are presently influenced by a strong gravitational field, your seconds will advance much faster, and also, compared to a different frame. Remember however, defining someone at rest is only a relative consideration. An absolute position of rest is impossible to define. These individual factors make it impossible to establish any definitive universal or common rate for the passage of time. It all depends on your personal frame and how those seconds are viewed from the observers position.

[Mike Gale]

I have indeed read the other posts and I realize this discussion has devolved into speculation about the nature of time and and absolute reference frames. My point is that the answer to the question posed in the title is trivial and the real question is how do my seconds differ from yours. SR answers that question, but it doesn't address the question of why. You can speculate all day about that and believe what you like. Maybe it's turtles all the way down. It won't make a shred of difference because it won't change any of the observables or the manner in which they are related.
Goc has misconstrued the concept of unambiguous measurements. It does not equate to an absolute reference frame. It simply means that a measurement made in one context can be reliably transposed to another. It requires a common factor, which is light speed in the case of SR.
I might add that any serious discussion about the nature of time must address the relationship between entropy and the arrow of time. Sean Carroll does a bang up job of that in his book From Eternity to Here.

[guest39538]

Let me change the question for those who do not understand the question.

At what pace does the present become the past?

All depends on one's personal frame MrBox. If you are traveling at a significant percentage of c, your seconds will advance at a much slower rate compared to someone at rest. If you are presently influenced by a strong gravitational field, your seconds will advance much faster, and also, compared to a different frame. Remember however, defining someone at rest is only a relative consideration. An absolute position of rest is impossible to define. These individual factors make it impossible to establish any definitive universal or common rate for the passage of time. It all depends on your personal frame and how those seconds are viewed from the observers position.

Do you have Ocd with relativity?  You obviously are not listening to anything posted.  I did not ask what is the rate of a clock.  I asked -At what pace does the present become the past?

[guest39538]

I have indeed read the other posts and I realize this discussion has devolved into speculation about the nature of time and and absolute reference frames. My point is that the answer to the question posed in the title is trivial and the real question is how do my seconds differ from yours. SR answers that question, but it doesn't address the question of why. You can speculate all day about that and believe what you like. Maybe it's turtles all the way down. It won't make a shred of difference because it won't change any of the observables or the manner in which they are related.
Goc has misconstrued the concept of unambiguous measurements. It does not equate to an absolute reference frame. It simply means that a measurement made in one context can be reliably transposed to another. It requires a common factor, which is light speed in the case of SR.
I might add that any serious discussion about the nature of time must address the relationship between entropy and the arrow of time. Sean Carroll does a bang up job of that in his book From Eternity to Here.

Facts not speculation. Your seconds do not differ from mine, are you really expecting people to believe that the pace of the present becoming the past is not immediate? Anything other than that would be laughable and quite illogical. Einsteins parlour tricks do not impress me.