[guest39538]

p.s when ''you'' finally accept what I am saying to be the absolute truth, we can then discuss entropy dilation.

[Mike Gale]

You are a legend in your own mind.

[GoC]

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 agree there is no absolute reference frame. How and where did you read anything I said to suggest one? There is only one ratio between frames with relativity math giving that ratio of observed effects accurately.

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.

If your time changes physically than your measuring devise has to change physically to measure the same speed of light in every frame. You measure the speed of light with your new measuring stick distance. The distance measured is different between frames. The distance measured is different while the speed of light is measured to be the same.

There is no preferred frame. The measured speed of light is unambiguous. The distance measured is ambiguous.

Time and distance are always related as a ratio. How you interpret meaning has to be properly defined. There is no time without motion c.

[guest39538]

You are a legend in your own mind.

I am a nobody in my mind, I noticed you avoid the question.

[guest39538]

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 agree there is no absolute reference frame. How and where did you read anything I said to suggest one? There is only one ratio between frames with relativity math giving that ratio of observed effects accurately.

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.

If your time changes physically than your measuring devise has to change physically to measure the same speed of light in every frame. You measure the speed of light with your new measuring stick distance. The distance measured is different between frames. The distance measured is different while the speed of light is measured to be the same.

There is no preferred frame. The measured speed of light is unambiguous. The distance measured is ambiguous.

Time and distance are always related as a ratio. How you interpret meaning has to be properly defined. There is no time without motion c.

Goc the absolute reference frame is observable space.

[guest39538]

jef: Any object that moves away from you falls into the past. Not only does time slow down for the object, but also because of the nature of light we observe the object falling into the past.

[GoC]

Goc the absolute reference frame is observable space.

We do not observe space.

jef: Any object that moves away from you falls into the past. Not only does time slow down for the object, but also because of the nature of light we observe the object falling into the past.

We do not ever observe the present. All observations are from the past by the amount of time light takes to reach your peeps

[guest39538]

Goc the absolute reference frame is observable space.

We do not observe space.

jef: Any object that moves away from you falls into the past. Not only does time slow down for the object, but also because of the nature of light we observe the object falling into the past.

We do not ever observe the present. All observations are from the past by the amount of time light takes to reach your peeps

Of course we observe space , what makes you think we do not?

We observe the present locally.

[jeffreyH]

jef: Any object that moves away from you falls into the past. Not only does time slow down for the object, but also because of the nature of light we observe the object falling into the past.

Keep on thinking but do some reading too. You need clarity of thought. I have every confidence that you can make real progress. In spite of what anyone else may think.

[Mike Gale]

You are a legend in your own mind.

I am a nobody in my mind, I noticed you avoid the question.

I assumed it was rhetorical. You asked if I am expecting people to believe that the pace of the present becoming the past is not immediate (and then arrogantly dismissed Einstein as a charlatan.) The answer to your question is obviously yes because, if it was immediate, then everything would happen at the same time. Perhaps you're confusing the speed of time with an incremental change in time. The temporal distance from the present to the immediate past is arbitrarily small.

[Mike Gale]

Of course we observe space , what makes you think we do not?

Space and time are meaningless in the absence of observers and light. Imagine yourself alone in the universe. How would you measure time and space? The answer is you can't. You need another observer and a means of communication.

[guest39538]

Of course we observe space , what makes you think we do not?

Space and time are meaningless in the absence of observers and light. Imagine yourself alone in the universe. How would you measure time and space? The answer is you can't. You need another observer and a means of communication.

The point being reflective bodies allow us to observe and measure space.

[guest39538]

The temporal distance from the present to the immediate past is arbitrarily small.

That is what I said, no space to dilate.

[Mike Gale]

We may be arguing across one another. When you say that we observe space or time, you mean that we observe objects in space and time. It's an important distinction because space and time are abstractions, not tangible objects. That was the point Jeffrey was trying to make.

[guest39538]

We may be arguing across one another. When you say that we observe space or time, you mean that we observe objects in space and time. It's an important distinction because space and time are abstractions, not tangible objects. That was the point Jeffrey was trying to make.

No, I mean we observe space, we can measure space. 

[GoC]

Life could not exist without motion. Our synapsis firing is our ability to record. Time for us is just motion of c ratio to brain firing. We are a biological clock with our telomeres unwinding until there are no telomeres left to unwind and  our ability to create new cells no longer exists. Time is distance electrons travel in a lifetime of cycling. Everything is energy of motion. The larger the amount of physical motion the less cycling of your electrons. Kinetic vs. fundamental energy. The more dilated the space you occupy the slower the cycle for reaction to age. The travel distance of the electron increases with dilation GR equivalent to increased distance through space for the photon in SR.

Time is a ratio of available energy to c total. There is no fixed energy state except total motion c. So there is no fixed frame as a standard.

[Mike Gale]

We may be arguing across one another. When you say that we observe space or time, you mean that we observe objects in space and time. It's an important distinction because space and time are abstractions, not tangible objects. That was the point Jeffrey was trying to make.

No, I mean we observe space, we can measure space. 

How?

[guest39538]

We may be arguing across one another. When you say that we observe space or time, you mean that we observe objects in space and time. It's an important distinction because space and time are abstractions, not tangible objects. That was the point Jeffrey was trying to make.

No, I mean we observe space, we can measure space. 

How?

What a strange question, how normally do we measure things?   In distance we use such things as a tape measure or even maybe a yard stick.
If you mean how do we see/observe space, that is a little more complex. Matter reflecting or emitting light creates a Quanta tunnel between observer and object, we see this to be ''empty'' space because there is nothing reflecting the light. 


Putting it in easy perspective, you can observe the ''empty'' space in a box or you would not know it was ''empty''.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

Speed of time is like this:
 +zero+zero+zero+ = (+) is C / zero is our present frame
What for us looks and feels like a fluid reality such as a big and everlasting single "zero/frame" with no delay, can be actually zero(c)zero(c)zero(c) where one frame of reality, each zero corresponds to the whole time as a single entity of energy.
 As we use light to be able to see things, seems to point that this frozen frame (because of motion) at some point started to overlap the previous one, and it's doing it at C.
 But for all effects inside the particle everything is still "frozen". The moving thins is the volume C around the particle in function of the reference the particle is offering.
  Eventually the frozen frame of the particle absorbs the kinetic energy of spinning C on the surrounding environment and stats to "physically" spin.
 Wherever the process is the rate in which it happens is C. So in between each frame of frozen energy, there is C of space overlapping the zero frame one over the other.
  Imagine that you body is a constant frozen frame of energy, and that your speed of existing is instantaneous.
  Now imagine that for you to walk, in between each step you give you body experience the present frame of frozen energy, but C goes in and "force" you to give the next step, and the next, and so on and on...
  But obviously consider that you're just walking as a normal entity and that you are not self aware that from frame to frame, you was still inert.

[guest39538]

Speed of time is like this:
 0+0+0+0+0+0 = (+) is C / 0 is our present frame
What for us looks and feels like a fluid reality such as "0000000000" with no delay, can be actually 0(c)0(c)0(c)

To me, you write a bit strange, but  yes.

Our eyes receive information wave packets , each wave packet we receive updates our observation of the universe.